A War on Science

When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution nearly 150 years ago, he shattered the dominant belief of his day – that humans were the product of divine creation. Through his observations of nature, Darwin proposed the theory of evolution by natural selection. This caused uproar. After all, if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator. Ever since its proposal, this cornerstone of biology has sustained wave after wave of attack. Now some scientists fear it is facing the most formidable challenge yet: a controversial new theory called intelligent design.

In the late 1980s Phillip Johnson, a renowned lawyer and born-again Christian, began to develop a strategy to challenge Darwin. To Johnson, the evidence for natural selection was poor. He also believed that by explaining the world only through material processes was inherently atheistic. If there was a god, science would never be able to discover it.

Johnson recruited other Darwin doubters, including biochemist Professor Michael Behe, mathematician Dr William Dembski, and philosopher of science Dr Stephen Meyer. These scientists developed the theory of intelligent design (ID) which claims that certain features of the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent being. To him, the presence of miniature machines and digital information found in living cells are evidence of a supernatural creator. Throughout the 90s, the ID movement took to disseminating articles, books and DVDs and organising conferences all over the world.

To its supporters, intelligent design heralds a revolution in science and the movement is fast gaining political clout. Not only does it have the support of the President of the United States, it is on the verge of being introduced to science classes across the nation. However, its many critics, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, fear that it cloaks a religious motive – to replace science with god.

465 Comments / User Reviews

God create everything, from thing put knowledge (science part of god knowledge gifted by chosen temporary be refund when the time age before soul be transfer from physical released like when we came from uterus bring nothing. Its same to properties, fame, title all those are temp. Waste time in this worlds with that material that god create to test us but not many take advantage for next journey they end wasted.

Some comments like to even the field and imply that atheists/evolutionists (aka science are simply the opposite side of the religious coin. Not so. The difference is stark. Science-reliers depend on the evidence presented by people (scientists) who observe the way things work and experiment to reveal its possibility/probability/provability. At every step they indicate which of those conclusions they reached and, everything is subject to reassessment and changing or abandoning as new evidence comes to light. That can, by no stretch of the imagination, be compared to religious faith which cannot be doubted by the adherents to the Bible or Koran. (Kelly K., you might bolster your credibility if you knew the spelling of terms you refer to so prominently. Occams Razor.)

The theory of Intelligent Design is not creationism and it doesn't have a religious motive. Just because a scientist is religious doesn't mean that their theory should be denounced. If that were the case the theory of evolution would never have been accepted. If you actually look at the theories surrounding the origin of life then you would realize what they are all missing, an actual explanation. The idea that cells came to be through chance has nearly no chance of being right since the odds of all the proteins necessary for a simple cell to come into existence by chance are 1 in 10^41,000. Those are terrific odds and unless they had all the time in the world to do, not possible. Plus when scientists talk about the primotrial soup and all of that, there is no evidence of its existence, that and a lot of theories say that the earth had a harsh atmosphere that would have allowed things to come together to form life, but recent evidence shows that this also is not true. No theory other than this one actually addresses all the facts and addresses the problems with the information in DNA and the fact that the only things codes that hold information are DNA, RNA, proteins, and things that are manmade like computers. So if the world could get over the religion vs. science they could see that this theory is science and that unless data appears to disprove it, it is valid.

The claim of intelligent design (its doesn’t even reach the hypothesis stage) is religious in nature. It is also creationism lies hiding as science.

David
- 03/11/2019 at 14:59

As Galileo once said “The Bible shows me how to go to Heaven, not how the Heavens go”. Do not confuse religious Dogma (Creationism) disguised as science. Pure scientific principe is self correcting that does not deal in absolutes like religion does. In addition there are so many scientific inaccuracies in your statement that I suggest you research them instead of parroting then from some website or Fix News pundit that you obtained them
From.

Philip H
- 07/18/2016 at 01:48

We know with reasonable certainty that civilisation exploded around 4,500 years ago in Mesopotamia. Considering how advanced that civilisation was, and our nature to gather together and make tools, I find the idea that we could have been scratching our arses for 200,000 years of existence before that, with little or nothing to show for it, an insult to my intellect.

If the bible is correct, then a rebellious angel rules the world who can quote the bible quite well, so how do you know you aren't under his thumb? The scribes of Jesus day knew the bible better than you (the vast majority anyway) do and they were convinced of their salvation.

As all scientists know, just because a theory can not be proven, does not mean the theory is invalid. Only until a theory is proven invalid can science prove the theory to be untrue. I would like to think there are individuals who are guided by the most noble part of their consciousness.
That is what I call spirit, the highest within each individual, the kindest and most intelligent of reasoning. Religion is the corruption of individual spirit, the perversion of collective spirit. Unfortunately, the genetic psychopaths amongst us, those who desire control over the unfettered, generous, creative spirit of the individual, tend to be drawn into organized religion, just as they are drawn into corporations, politics, and the military-industrial complex. Before the Christian church was highjacked by the declining Roman Empire, the loosely organized Gnostic communities provided service to the common people. They helped each other and most importantly, the less fortunate living within their midst. I still believe there are good, sincere, religious people, although far and few between. Thanks for your response.

IWhat about those guided by the most ignoble part of their consciousness? Is this sector of the consciousness somehow not the spirit or the opposite of the spirit? In addition, what might appear kind or noble to one person might appear unkind or ignoble to another.

bumpercrop
- 08/26/2013 at 19:00

Science has become a switch-addiction for religion. Science is most certainly not the panacea that many who have abandoned spiritual belief have imagined it would be. Look around us, science has helped humans on many levels but science has also brought nature to the brink of destruction. Blind science with no reverence for vision is like religion with no respect for science. They are 2 sides of the same coin.

Before you can have "spiritual belief," you must first prove the existence of the spirit. Without this, "spiritual belief" is merely an empty affirmation.
Now, name one positive accomplishment of religion which is solely and exclusively within its province.

get1949
- 08/26/2013 at 16:46

“Religion an attack on science”? Only from the fundamentalists that believe blindly that something as complicated as the stellar nucleosynthesis process (Proton-proton and the CNO cycle) can be answered with “…and God created in 6 days”. Yet the Bible is not saying that it was simply done it is just giving a layman’s simple reply to cause and effect of our deliberate informationally bounded existence. Should I state in conclusion that “Henry Ford created the Model T Ford and could pop them out at a rate of one every 6 seconds or so?” Well, I could. It would not be totally incorrect…. And children do learn this and it would not be argued much in everyday chat. However, in digging into it there is the assemble line process and a big building and much machinery and many workers. AND, each model however, did not evolve on its own cognition! The model A Ford has similar parts and operations but the changes were designed deliberately…all the way up to seatbelts! There are intelligent people/minds behind EACH different version…the
different models do not evolve on their own decision based on the few inferior models that could not get along on the road with their ‘peers’ and so ‘limped’ back to the factory to ‘magically’ come up with a better mutation of design! Information always points back to Intelligence! And we never make information we only discover it…sometimes nicely and well hidden in the ever increasing entropy of this universe. We are so surrounded by information that we do not even see it anymore—we are like fish in water, we do not know we are wet. Religion is NOT against science fundamentalists are against science!! The Bible even states that we are to: always “seek knowledge in our youth”; to “come let us reason”; to “seek and the door will be opened”; to “test everything and hold on to that which is good” (what works and is true); that we are “to NOT conform to
the pattern of this world but be transformed by a RENEWING of your mind.” (You are to renew YOUR mind not be influenced incorrectly by cults and Ouija boards or astrology…any non-reasonable input).
Andrew Dickson White and John Draper began the separation of religion from science back in the mid 1800 (look them up on Google) even though it was mostly Christian and Islamic folks who initiated learning from out of the times of the dark ages (you want fundamentalism then go look to the medieval inquisition)
with the beginning of universities. And I quote from Google “History_of_Christianity_of_the_Middle_Ages”:

Modern western universities have their origins directly in the Medieval Church. They began as cathedral schools, and all
students were considered clerics. This was a benefit as it placed the students under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and thus imparted certain legal immunities and protections. The cathedral schools eventually became partially detached from the cathedrals and formed their own institutions, the earliest being the University of Paris (c. 1150), the University of Bologna (1088), and the University of Oxford
(1096). Universities as institutions that issue academic degrees were inspired by Islamic madrasahs founded in the ninth century.[10] For instance, the University of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco is thus recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as the oldest degree-granting university in the world with its founding in 859 by the princess Fatima al-Fihri.

As with all things “human” we tend to go to extremes. And we should NOT do that. There is a medium ground. We need to find that narrow line/zone and be careful to not lean too far one way or the other.

You want a medium ground: religion stays in the home, the house of worship and the parochial school. It keeps its nose out of science.

get1949
- 08/26/2013 at 18:36

Not sure that’s really possible… Oh you can spend energy, time, and money fighting to one extreme, but that is not what science does. Science seeks truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes a person, no matter how difficult the journey, no matter the conclusion. Frankly, I do not believe we should be
resisting ANY informational input that is based in reason (and that sounds a bit like a one-ended stick). Learning is not our problem (as the weird creature we are—we do not fit in with any other creature on this planet) discerning is the issue (our problem). Science basically admits that it has no clue as to what it is we are even…in. Science states that 95% of existence (universe) is Dark matter and Dark Energy (which
can no more be empirically tested than can the existence of God) and that of the remaining 5% (called Baryonic matter—that which we can –empirically- test and see and ‘feel’) is 99.9999% empty space. So tell me Mr. Materialist, on what are you basing your empirical conclusion on…be it Darwinism or Intelligent Design?? We could all be spirits in a giant non-dimensional hologram, stuck in
these Earthsuits and wanting to get ‘Home’ where fairness, perfection, (and no) time…and all the other abstracts qualities MOST Christians value are in affect (they work correctly!). Now that
admittedly is going to extremes but at some point Occam’s Razor needs to be faced and we realize how bazaar what it is we are and what it is we are in. “Religion stays at home” then means that science is reduced and bounded to the empirical-ness of well…almost nothing (99.9999% empty space). Doing such limits science, Science well paint itself into a corner.
It is the fundamentalists that I am against…those who bash the Bible in my face and talk about damnation and the rot (doing that is NOT reasonable – See Isaiah 1:18). The Big Bang is science (you agree?) It was George Lemaitre who coined the idea but it was Fred Hoyle who came up with the phrase. How? Hoyle and atheist derided Lemaitre and Lemaitre is a Catholic Priest!! Dial up “Lemaitre and Einstein” and surf for just images – George confronted Albert and was deemed correct. It is a damning story of
education holding back the truth because admitting that anyone with a collar could do science is NOT allowed. Look, I’m not asking you to sing halleluiah and grovel on your knees in penitence…all I am asking is that you use the curiosity and the conscience that you (WE) all have…and don’t get locked into just science especially as science is running out of empirical things to test…it is going quantum and eventually metaphysical and too philosophic and too even theological. Seek the truth—no matter where it takes you; for if you do not do that then all you are doing is conjuring up blind faith and you’ll have to convince yourself of your own mistakes and lies. Don’t numb your conscience and dumb your curiosity!!

robertallen1
- 08/26/2013 at 20:12

1. Whether you like it or not, the beauty of
science lies in its empirical bound which raises the standard. If you doubt the effectiveness of this bound, I suggest that you compare the manifold accomplishments of science (hardly evidence of “painting itself in a corner”) with those of religion, the irrationality, presupposition and dogma behind which has indeed caused it to paint itself into a corner. I also suggest that you
compare the accomplishments of mainstream empirical science to those (if any) of
the various pseudosciences which you seem to regard as being on the same level.

2. Dark matter (dark energy) is so far merely a hypothesis or conjecture, not a scientific theory, and transmogrifying it into
an argument against empiricism and by extension against mainstream science in
general and juxtaposing it to blind
faith is plainly and patently dishonest.

3. "What it is we are" is simply a silly
and meaningless philosophical question--not a scientific one. Thus taking science to task for not being able to “answer” it, is once again patently dishonest.

4. Although Einstein was at first skeptical of Lemaitre’s theory (on purely mathematical,
not religious, grounds), after Hubble's discovery was published, he publicly
endorsed it. In addition, while having no
argument with Lemaitre’s theory, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation, a disagreement having nothing to do with Hoyle’s atheism versus Lemaitre’s theism—all this far from “a damning story of education holding back the truth because admitting that anyone with a collar could do science is NOT allowed.” As for scientists not believing clericals could not do science, not only is there LeMaitre, but Gregor Mendel and especially William Buckland who was elected to the Royal Society in 1818. More evidence of your dishonesty.

In short, religion has no place in scientific
discussions, much less in science classrooms, legislatures and governmental entities.

get1949
- 08/26/2013 at 23:27

"More evidence of your dishonesty"!!!! GO into your classroom and close the door. If you'd spend half the time studying and took up some relationship skills too than the bantering and bashing you do all over this Doc web you'd probably be a halfway decent individual. GO AWAY! I'm done with your labeling and attacks. There always has to be someone who wants to control others and to limit what they are suppose to think (in this case YOU). GROW UP!

robertallen1
- 08/26/2013 at 23:52

As if this can even begin to pass for an answer which you obviously don't have.

get1949
- 08/27/2013 at 02:38

Go back to your tree. I do not come here for your trite ad homien attacks. You can't discuss the subject, so you go for the throat - your little attack mode fits your survival-of-the-fittest desires. Calling me "dishonest" is undeserved and is an attack which I'd expect from a third-grader who has no knowledge of any science or social (people) skills. And you certainly do not know me, the schools I've taught, or the military career I completed...or anything else. Go pluck lice from your 'friends'. I do not consider your comments much more than you feeding your ego. With over 11,200 comments to your posting 'career' I wonder what you really do do (in contribution to the human society you're suppose to be a part of) to buy your bananas.

robertallen1
- 08/27/2013 at 03:01

A rant does not even approach an answer. I guess it touches a nerve when your dishonesty is exposed. From your posts, it's obvious that your education, especially in science, is limited if not downright minimal.

Achems_Razor
- 08/27/2013 at 20:08

Ah, the old watchmaker's fallacy!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy

Rampage
- 08/15/2013 at 05:53

Even if irreducible complexity was discovered, that doesn't prove a creator, it just proves that evolution is random. In the same way that creatures may evolve worthless parts, and those parts may continue to evolve until they are useful somehow, and therefore help the creature to, for example survive better out of the water. So naturally(literally) that species migrates to a new environment(because it can) where it may thrive.

Intelligent design is absurd. It implies that living creatures have been created by someone long ago and that they have never changed that design of theirs. Animals nowadays are constantly adapting and evolving. A biological 'machine' could never do that. Maybe these anti-evolution thinkers should first read some cytology. There's your 'intelligent' design. Of course the mechanism is perfect, they have to be after having changed and adapted for millions of years. And any religious fanatic who claims the world is 6.000 years old and that it was made in seven days, you are just hypocrite. How can you deny fossils? Have scientists placed them all around the world to combat creationism? It's so silly, so pitiful, that you can't deal with a world without God; we can all do perfectly fine without it. It is what animals have done for millions of years.

I gave up on biology a long time ago. If you intelligent designers are really looking for proof, you need to examine the very fundamentals of matter. Biology is basically the "social science" of the natural sciences. Everything and anything within it can be explained by increasingly natural fields. There is no evidence that directly points to God here. You are fighting a losing battle, go read something besides your Bible, please. Maybe you will avoid such a tremendous embarrassment every time you decide to open your mouth.

On the other hand, I would suggest the religious fundamentalists to go and read their bible - correctly. It is so full of contradictions.

Guest
- 01/10/2012 at 04:10

Bwarff! Stopped viewing it. Anyhow, at any moment in the evolution of humankind, some, anything may have been necessary to be given to homosapiens to acquire reasoning.

Therefore, Darwin could already had this in mind at the time he set his principles. Did he ever squarely state that there is no God?
Evolution principles don't mean that no God ever seeded human being with reason?

Correct. Darwin never stated that there is no god. Atheism was merely a donkey's tail that his enemies tacked on to him and which for the ignorant remains tacked on.

Correct again about evolution which has nothing to do with how man acquired what we consider reason.

And were more people to read at least some of Darwin before commenting on him and evolution, this thread would have fewer ignorant, idiotic posts.

Guest
- 01/10/2012 at 06:36

@robertallen1,

Oh Gosh! What a mess it became here!

As bad as the religion topics.

What do I do when I realise that a handbook of a given technic is full of "Boasting", lies of aberrations? I quit and go relax at home...

If if happened once, once is one time too many for perfection.
If facts are that obvious, why torture peoples into beliefs?

I may have to stop the TDF emailed comments for a while.
Bad thing that we can refuse comments from only one single docu at a time! Geeezzus!

Pierre.

Albert Brazzen.
- 08/21/2013 at 11:50

If facts are that obvious, then the only way to get people to follow your religious beliefs would be to torture them. Big religions (some less so nowadays) have had the threat of execution to deter any who stray.
Religion poisons everything - as the late, great Hitchens (amongst others) shouted.

over the edge
- 01/10/2012 at 03:52

holy text explosion batman. i don't see what the big deal is. so Robert doesn't hold back and says what is on his mind. his tone might scare some off or rub some the wrong way but all i care about is if someone is right and can back it up. i have been told i am going to hell many times on this site and if you think about that it is probably the worst thing a religious person can wish on another (in their mind). look if someone wants to be treated with respect i have an idea. when debating with others use logic, provide evidence for your argument back up assertions with facts and if a statement is an assumption or opinion state it that way, don't answer a question with a question or bring up non related topics. see if that helps

Dante proved that hell is for the intelligent--and may even have wound up there.

And speaking of hell, if it has not been done already, why not chronicle its history, for, as I'm sure you know, the whole concept has changed through the ages just as the concept of Satan who was originally the accuser. I thank you for the inspiration (a religious term from the Latin "spirare" to breath in as in the breath of you know who (or what)).

Anthony Glaude
- 01/10/2012 at 01:00

Sri Lanka's biggest wildlife reserve and home to hundreds of wild elephants and several leopards.

"The strange thing is we haven't recorded any dead animals," H.D. Ratnayake, deputy director of the national Wildlife Department, told Reuters on Wednesday.

"No elephants are dead, not even a dead hare or rabbit," he added. "I think animals can sense disaster. They have a sixth sense. They know when things are happening."

@over the edge I do appreciate your last response to me, it showed a level of maturity, that we could disagree but don't get disagreeable. That shows that we didn't evolve from monkeys or that we and monkeys don't share the same or common ancestor. Now you spoke about "bacteria that eats byproducts of nylon which contains an enzyme that allows it to digest it"....Question...Have you done your personal experiment on such or is it just your belief of another's theory? Why I am asking, is because at some point in time you have to believe in something that you have not personally proved or experimented with personally. Take for instance you said that nylon wasn't developed till 1935, can you personally prove that? Having said that! you asked me who created the creator? Now I did answer you in my last blog, the creator was not created because the creator possesses eternal life which in the Hebrew is called Zoe meaning God's own life, that's why Jesus said "I am come that you may have life and that you may have it more abundantly." Now I am not saying that I don't believe in the bacteria experiment, not at all!! because I do know that a bacteria is very intelligent creature, but who gave it, it's intelligence? What school did it attend? The ant is also a very intelligent creature, again what university did it attend? Some years ago there was tsunami that killed almost 300,000 people, but did you know what they discovered? Some-how there wasn't any animals among the dead, are animals more intelligent than human beings? Or is it, that they live by their God given instincts?

You are obviously a person of no real education and who desires none, who knows nothing about evolution and even less about biology (if that's possible) and yet believes himself competent to assert that monkeys and humans do share no common ancestor.

You are so wrapped up in your own lack of any erudition that you try to deman science by equating it with your vapid, infantile beliefs--and yes, it is possible to prove that nyon was not developed until 1935 by what is known as looking the matter up and not conjecturing in your idiotic way on the intelligence of bacteria and ants, not making up a fantastic story about a tsunami that killed 300,000 people and no animals , not purporting to know all about a creator which by your own admission is basically unknowable.

You have been repeatedly asked for proof of your assertions and so far you have failed to provide anything, namely because you have nothing to offer except an endless stream of stupidity and ignorance. mixed with drivel and tripe.

Epicurus
- 01/09/2012 at 23:06

"I do appreciate your last response to me, it showed a level of maturity, that we could disagree but don't get disagreeable. That shows that we didn't evolve from monkeys or that we and monkeys don't share the same or common ancestor."

actually apes show extremely high levels of morality and ethics.

"Now you spoke about "bacteria that eats byproducts of nylon which contains an enzyme that allows it to digest it"....Question...Have you done your personal experiment on such or is it just your belief of another's theory?"

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium, living in ponds containing waste water from a nylon factory, that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon 6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed before the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were significantly different from any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any material other than the manmade nylon byproducts.

its not a theory. it is a discovery. just like you wouldnt say, "do you really believe there is an antarctica, or are you just believing someone else's theory?"

now for that to have happened it must have evolved. basically added new genetic information that wasnt there before and making the bacteria distinct from its ancestors, and thus a new species.

"Take for instance you said that nylon wasn't developed till 1935, can you personally prove that?"

Nylons are condensation copolymers formed by reacting equal parts of a diamine and a dicarboxylic acid, so that amides are formed at both ends of each monomer in a process analogous to polypeptide biopolymers. The ability to do this was not available or known prior to 1935. There is also not a single shred of nylon from before that time. nylon is not a naturally occurring product. It is something that we produce.

"because I do know that a bacteria is very intelligent creature"

how do you know that? i will tell you that bacteria is NOT intelligent and the process of the bacteria mutating the ability to digest nylon waste was NOT an intelligent process but one of trial and error and natural selection.

intelligence itself is a byproduct of the higher ordered brains which also is due to a long process of evolution.

"Some years ago there was tsunami that killed almost 300,000 people, but did you know what they discovered? Some-how there wasn't any animals among the dead, are animals more intelligent than human beings? Or is it, that they live by their God given instincts?"

well this is just false. there were MANY MANY dead animals. however yes many animals are able to tell when a disaster is coming and that is because they have senses that differ from ours.

it seems to me that your entire objection to everything is based on incredulity. if you want to live your life on assumptions based on incredulity be my guest, but dont try to tell other people that they are valid positions or that science is some how flawed because it doesnt fit into your view of the world with your very very limited knowledge.

Guest
- 01/10/2012 at 00:44

Here is a very good exemple of what you suggest to Robertallen. It works great for both parties, you get to explain the way a teacher would and ...how is Anthony to answer that other than by reading and searching and perhaps admit that it was his turn to learn something! It doesn't mean that "everything" Anthony has to say is wrong, on different subject he may be knowledgeable when you are not.

This world is full of misinformation fuelled by the fact that we are constantly in contact with people who give and share ideas. If every one was university educated for years and years...not many people would be working.
I have been reading all your posts, the main quality i see in all of them is that they are informative instead of being intimidating.
az

Justin Thomas
- 01/09/2012 at 04:37

@Vlatko
I appreciate the reasoned response that you gave and the website that you pointed me to. It really contains a plethora of information that I will enjoy reading. After reading some of the posts and doing some other research, I will apologize for using the examples of irreducible complexity and mathematical impossibility. I still contend that the fossil record is incomplete and open to interpretation. With that being said, the current evidence does seem to support the current theory. As I live and learn, I find that there is more out than I could ever possibly know on my on.

I will amend my statement and say that abiogenesis is a problem for those studying the origins of life itself. There are many different theories out there, and they all seem to fall in and out of favor. Evolution is absolutely independent of abiogenesis.

Again, I want to say that I appreciate your non-combative response. This is a hot topic that seems to bring out the worst in people.

My major concern is not about the veracity of either evolution or the Bible, but rather a harmonious combination of both. Why is it that the ID and evolution camps are so reluctant to work together? Isn't that what science is all about?

The pursuit of knowledge and understanding by observation and experimentation demands an unbiased approach. Currently, evolutionary theory is the scientific conclusion that fits the facts the most. The evidence is there to support most of the claims by evolutionary science. However, the key struggle with evolution has always been trying to explain how that first organism came into being. There has not been a credible experiment that can adequately explain what happened and we cannot observe any processes today that would shed light on how this happened. I would argue that accepting that it did happen is in fact an act of faith.

The theory of ID simply postulates that there is a God behind the development of the natural world and all that it contains. This hypotheses cannot be tested and therefore it will never be accepted as a legitimate scientific theory. However, this does not mean that the scientific questions raised by the ID camp have no validity. The idea of irreducible complexity, mathematical impossibility of evolution, the lack of fossil evidence for macro-evolution, etc. are all questions that need to be addressed and not simply dismissed. That is the value of ID as a science. It plays a role in a system of checks and balances that ensures the accuracy of the scientific data moving forward.

The real question is not the validity of either viewpoints. Rather, I would argue that it is a battle between perceived world views. ID supporters mainly think that evolution does away with God and that the scientists behind it are perpetuating an atheistic worldview. On the other side, evolutionary scientists believe that ID supporters are trying to do away with evolution simply because it does not fit in their ideological viewpoint which would change the foundation of science as we know it. I would argue that neither is very accurate. I am personally a staunch christian and believe that evolution and ID go hand in hand. The creation story as told in Genesis, to me, does not have to be taken as a literal 7 days. In fact, I would argue that it is actually a less complex narrative revealed by God to early man that they could actually understand. There would be no way that early man would be able to understand the concept of billions of years, or a slow, persistent process that resulted in the current creation as we have it. This view does not do away with the idea of "special creation", it just postulates that it took a far longer time period for us to emerge.

When I see the evidence for evolution, I see the complex brushstrokes of a loving Creator that took his time to create the world as it is and who is not done yet.

Your first big mistake is placing ID on the same level as science and then pushing for a harmonious combination of the two. This demeans science and raises ID to an undeserved intellectual respectability.

Your second big mistake (and one of your most flagrant) is placing veracity secondary to harmony and relegating and epitomizing the so-called controversy to a matter of differing world views. This crops up several times in your post and says everything about your intellectual standards.

Your third big mistake is bringing in abiogenesis or how life started. This is simply not what evolution is about and you should know better.

Your fourth big mistake is your assertion that accepting the concept that life began is an act of faith. This is merely an attempt to bring science down to the mental level of ID by pretending that it, like ID, is based on faith.

Your fifth big mistake is stating that ID raises scientific questions when it merely posits an a priori answer based on nothing.

Your sixth big mistake is asserting the existence of irreducible complexity when in truth there is no such thing. This is simply dishonest.

Your seventh big mistake is your mischaracterization of the workings of evolution in terms of probability. Leave the snow in the field.

Your eighth big mistake is macro evolution. There is no distinction between it and micro. It's all just evolution, regardless of the timeframe.

Your ninth big mistake is your asseveration that ID "plays a role in a system of checks and balances that ensures the accuracy of the scientific data moving forward." As ID is far from science, it can play no such role and to say that it does, again demeans science and exalts ID. As a matter of fact, ID does the just opposite, as evidenced by the false and misleading representations with which you and those like you assail us.

Your tenth big mistake is your subjective assertion of a "loving Creator" (whatever that is) in support of your beliefs. This is on a level with a belief in the tooth fairy.

In short, your post is no more than a decalogue of misinformation and out-and-out deceit--but what more can one expect from a little ID person.

Rampage
- 08/15/2013 at 05:25

! I just realized I stopped watching the documentary and started to read all the comments :P

Anthony Glaude
- 01/08/2012 at 13:37

I am not talking about experiments.Science can do any thing with experiments. What I am saying, if it happened back then naturally then why, is it not happening again today naturally? and nothing can evolve without live. Who give the first being life? and to my educated friend the reason why we can enjoy a chicken after so many generations is because an egg do come back to an egg and the reason why there are still frogs is because tadpoles do come back to tadpoles and the reason why there are still human being in the world, is because a sperm do come back to a sperm, it's the circle of life, the law of resurrection, seed coming back to seed,it is even in music, you start in G and you end in G,it started with God and it will end with GOD.
Now there are two forms of life [1] temporal life [2] eternal life, temporal life has a beginning so it will have an end but eternal life has no beginning so it has no end and that the life that God possesses which is call in the Hebrew Zoe. [A life that never did began so it can never end]Now science cannot teach you these things because these things are divinely revealed it comes from one of the oldest book in the world today, that many scientist have try to disprove but is in the grave today. Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away but not one jot or a tittle [that is a punctuation mark] of my words will in any wise fail. HE SAID IT I BELIEVE IT AND THAT WILL ALWAYS SETTLE IT.

@Anthony Glaude
"if it happened back then naturally then why, is it not happening again today naturall" but it is happening today, there is a bacteria that eats byproducts of nylon it contains an enzyme that allows it to digest it but that enzyme isn't present in other forms of the bacteria and have no other use then digesting nylon byproducts. now nylon wasn't developed til 1935 so this bacteria would have to evolve this enzyme after 1935. also evolution is a long slow process and we have only been studding it for less than 200 years there are still changes happening to most if not all life but the changes are so small that they rarely produce new species over such a short time. "I am not talking about experiments.Science can do any thing with experiments" are you suggesting that these studies are faked? do you have any proof of this? or are you just dismissing it because it doesn't fit with your beliefs? i have been involved in this discussion for a long time and was always asked for observed evolution but now that we have it the creationist movement dismisses it . is there any proof that can be presented to prove evolution to you or do you have so much invested in your faith that nothing will change your mind? you keep asking questions and they keep getting answered. but you either dismiss the answers without disproving them or just ask more questions. here is a switch how about you start answering the questions directed at you by myself and others and please provide proof with those answers.

robertallen1
- 01/09/2012 at 01:00

I guess the reason creationists don't believe in evolution is because not one of them has ever suffered a roach infestation or been inflicted with lice or crabs.

Anthony Glaude
- 01/07/2012 at 22:45

@robertallen1it seems like one thing you are very good at, is attacking people that don't believe your evolution theory, that every things evolve from one thing. Now I may not be as intelligent as you are... so I would like to ask you some questions. You said to me that Darwin did not say that man come from monkey but that they sheared the same ancestors, isn't that the same? because monkey life will always produce monkey life and bird life will always produce more birds, why, because every seed brings forth after it's own kind, naturally speaking. If that is not so, then why don't we get pumpkin when we sow a tomato seed why don't we get watermelon when we sow a lime seed, why don't we get a lion when two zebras mates. "Beginning is the first clear sign of finial results" the way a thing begins will determined how it will end and that is a principle I will like you to look at. Because what nature teaches,that is in perfect harmony with the bible, is the law of Resurrection. As I said before every seed brings forth after it own kind, if that was not so, could you imagine a man going with a woman and producing a dog, or you put your two pit-bulls to mate and they produce a cat or a farmer sow tomatoes in his field and wake up to find rats hanging on his tree, could you imagine what a world that will be? Well that's the world that I am seeing with your evolution theories.

You really need an education for the more you write, the more ignorant you sound. Instead of posing questions as you stated you were going to do, you pontificate and pathetically at that. I really wonder who put all of this nonsense into your head.

If you have time to blog about evolution, you have time to read up on it. So try Wikipedia for starters.

However, a few random points.

1. Please learn to read. I never stated that monkeys and humans shared the same ancestors, but rather they shared a common ancestor. This is not the same as saying that humans evolved from monkeys. A glance at a biological tree might enlighten you.

2. Please learn something about natural science before assailing us with your puerile and uninformed observations. The Bible was written too long ago to be a textbook on the subject so don't try to use it as one. As its writers knew nothing about genetic, evolution, geology, etc. and lacked the ability and the willingness (much less the equipment) to research, there is no way nature can be in harmony with the Bible.

3. "The way a thing begins will determine how it will end." What about eggs, tadpoles or sperm?

4. For your information, birds evolved from dinosaurs; land life evolved from aquatic life. This renders the phrase "after its own kind" complete nonsense on a par with resurrection.

THE ONLY ARGUMENT YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE AGAINST EVOLUTION IS YOUR OWN IGNORANCE!

Epicurus
- 01/08/2012 at 02:55

How old are you? and did you finish or go to school?

did you ever study Gregor Mendel and his genetic experiments on peas?

do you know about the recent long term E coli experiments we have done showing it evolve to another species??

Is this religious squib all you have to offer in support of your "proof" of resurrection?

You are beyond pathetic.

Anthony Glaude
- 01/07/2012 at 09:35

The whole armor of God is supernatural. What is the armor of God? Love. What is love? Scientifically, prove to me there is such a thing as love. Where's it at? How many of us know what it is to love? raise up your hand: love your wife, love your brother, love your friends? Well, I want somebody, some science, to prove to me what part of you is love. Where do you buy it, what drugstore? I want a bunch of it. Love, joy, you got joy? Peace, long-suffering, gentleness, patience, what is it? It's all supernatural.
God is supernatural. You don't scientifically prove God. You believe God. You believe it. If you don't believe it, then a man that says everything that's not scientifically proven, is unorthodox, it's not right, then that man can never be a Christian. He has to believe. By faith we believe God, not by education, not by theology. But by faith you are saved.

Why don't you read up on Lourdes (and I don't mean in some religious rag) before spouting such a falsehood.

You wonder why at times people aren't nice to each other on this site--well, now you have your answer.

Mistymoo
- 01/07/2012 at 20:53

I don't need to read up on it my father was cured totally. I don't mind if people are not nice to each ohter on here i find it rather entertaining getting people like u to give a reaction

Epicurus
- 01/08/2012 at 02:49

what was your father cured of? and how do you know it was because of going to Lourdes?

Epicurus
- 01/07/2012 at 17:25

not a single miracle has been proven at lourdes.

Father Liam Griffin who works at Lourdes reports 66 declared miracles and about 2,000 unexplained cures (out of approximately 80,000 sick visitors per year over more than a century)

so we have 80,000 visitors a year for 100 years. that means there was 8,000,000 visitors so far.

he CLAIMS there were 66 miracles...what constitutes a miracle? did anyone grow a leg back where there was none? did anyone magically get lifted into the air then when dropped back down no longer had AIDS? no. all things that could happen like cancer going into remission get called miracles. they are not miracles.

so we have 66 miracles out of 8 MILLION people....and not a single one of those miracles can be CERTAIN to have been a miracle....how can you believe this stuff unless you WANT to believe it?

robertallen1
- 01/07/2012 at 16:54

"By faith we believe God, not by education."

This epitomizes what faith really is: a triumverate of ignorance, stupidity and superstition masquerading as a false virtue. In other words, faith is a fraud, just like you.

P.S. Why don't you learn a bit about science before writing about it?

Justin Thomas
- 01/09/2012 at 09:31

What about Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, or more relevant to this discussion, Mendel? Are they all ignorant, stupid or perpetuating a superstition? These were some of the most intelligent men of their time and they all believed in some form of a creator. Mendel did his work at the monastery that he was a monk.

You have nothing useful to contribute to these discussions. All you do is call anyone stupid and ignorant if they disagree with you. Your closed mindedness and quickness to dismiss anything that does not fit withing your neat little world shows not only your true colors, but reflects on your mental capacity as well. The most intelligent people are the ones that can open their mind to new ideas and experiences, that aren't afraid of a little challenge.

In the words of Max Planck, "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: Ye must have faith. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with."

robertallen1
- 01/09/2012 at 17:55

With the exception of Einstein and perhaps Mendel, all the immortals of science you cite were products of a time when the western world was in the grip of the Vatican. Attempting to link their accomplishments to their belief in a creator (which in many cases was forced on them) is misleading, intellectually dishonest and a typical ID trick.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty and typical ID tricks, you fail to cite the source of your quote, indicate whether it's a translation or even to mention what Dr. Planck meant by faith.

If I have nothing useful to contribute to these discussions, then you have less, for, as others have pointed out, you deceive and misstate to justify your pathetic teleology and exalt your baseless approach to the level of intellectual novelty and challenge.

Epicurus
- 01/09/2012 at 22:54

Robert, as your comrade, i will say that you should TRY a more civil approach for a few weeks.

your writing is superb and your command of the english language enables someone to better picture what you are explaining...but they refuse to listen when they feel demeaned.

lol as much as i agree with you i would love to see you try a more tactful approach as i think it would really benefit our position.

robertallen1
- 01/09/2012 at 23:08

It's one thing to ask a meaningful question and it's another to make a statement. People who make statements on matters they know nothing about deserve to be demeaned.

I have never been tactful and have no intention of beginning now.

Epicurus
- 01/09/2012 at 23:59

lol right on man. i hear ya.

robertallen1
- 01/10/2012 at 01:24

And as part of our mutual admiration society, I really enjoy your posts and I apologize for not having told you this earlier. It's obvious that your scientific background by far eclipses mine and therefore I relish the information you provide.

By the way, what's your math background like?

Guest
- 01/10/2012 at 00:53

The thing you don't seem to realize is that not only the person to whom you are answering is reading your posts....thousands are and instead of fueling your frustration on those you consider stupido, a smarter comment would fuel the knowledge and openess of thousands.
Instead of harrassing every one about their English writing skill, impress us with yours...much more pleasant for the crowd since you are one of our best with "la plume".
I may give you the impression that i dislike you...i don't ...i dislike your arrogance...not the content of your knowlwedge.
az

Epicurus
- 01/09/2012 at 23:10

Einstein didnt believe in a god.

I would agree with Robert that those people were all products of their time. they lacked the information needed to say whether this world was intelligently designed or not. but they were still wrong for assuming as such without the information.

I would also say that the only faith I have as a scientist is that the physical laws are constant. however if things show not to i dont ignore them. i study them with rigour.

robertallen1
- 01/09/2012 at 23:21

You can see why these people deserve no respect. Unlike you, they can't even get their facts right and what they don't know, they make up.

And Newton was wrong about a number of things, for example, the significance of imaginary numbers and a number of elements of Darwin and Mendel have been corrected with the passage of time. Does this make them any less great?

Your final paragraph demonstrates the beauty of science--it can correct itself in light of new discoveries and still retain its respectability.

P.S. Why the false conditional, "I would agree." I agree is fine, direct and beautifully tactless.

Epicurus
- 01/10/2012 at 00:02

lol you are right, its rhetoric and tact.

but if you look at my very early posts they are a lot less friendly. it made a lot of people butthurt.

but on days when im grumpy it sure is a great form of catharsis, i just promised Az some time ago that i would try to be nicer.

Epicurus
- 01/07/2012 at 17:19

love is the release of a certain type and amount of neurotransmitters and hormones. mainly oxytocin. i can inject you with oxytocin and you would start to feel intense feelings of love towards things.

you could also take some MDMA which would inhibit the re-uptake of serotonine in your brain as well as flooding it with dopamine which would also encourage feelings of love and joy.

by faith i believe that i have wings and can fly....does that make it true? why do you think faith is a thing that should be used to help you understand the world? faith actually makes you think you have an answer when you dont. it is not a good thing. it is bad.

robertallen1
- 01/07/2012 at 19:01

Well put, as usual.

Mistymoo
- 01/07/2012 at 06:02

I get so fed up of the stupid argument on these threads - where are some kind of moderators - i don;t wish to read this drivel

@over the edge, Why would you won't to refer to your self as over the edge? don't you know that your name is what characterizes you. In response to your question, who created the creator? Now, I could tell you but, I will like to say this to you.... the creator is still alive so ask him and he will tell you, because many people today is behaving as if he is dead. I spoke to him today and he said to me after I wrote my last blog to continue writing, he said, you will receive a lot of attacks and already, he is proven to be right. All I am doing is lifting Him up above science, because He is the Author of life. Again I reiterate that science cannot give life.I know of a man in our generation who testified of a boy being raised from the dead in Finland years before it happen, and while he was in Finland he witness the accident and after praying for the boy in the name of Jesus Christ before many witnesses the boy came back to life, and there are many many other things that took place that is to numerous to mention, so before you go over the edge ask him and he will tell you all that you need to know, he said that he is a re-warder to them that diligently seek him, thank you.

And your grammar and usage characterize you as uneducated and mentally deficient.

With a scientist, we can always check the facts. With you, we have to take you word for the truth of your ejaculations, however inane: that the creator speaks to you, that a boy was resurrected after being prayed for in the name of Jesus Christ. You are either deluded or a downright liar.

Achems_Razor
- 01/07/2012 at 03:46

@Anthony Glaude:
You spoke to your creator today? and he, she, or it, told you to continue writing? Je$us jumping Chr1$t, was not going to reply to any of your posts until I read that, you should keep all that cr@zy stuff to yourself, people will think this is a blog for loony toons.

Epicurus
- 01/07/2012 at 03:54

I speak to my god everyday and it is a different god than yours. it also told me that it didnt raise any child from the dead.

so what makes you right and me wrong?

over the edge
- 01/07/2012 at 07:41

@Anthony Glaude
thank you for answering absolutely none of my questions. your lack of response speaks louder than you ever could have. also you state a design needs a designer. life looks designed to you? why give us a tail bone,wisdom teeth, appendix, why do whales have the remnants of hind legs and so on? your designer sure made a lot of mistakes . but of course if we evolved all these things make sense.

Anthony Glaude
- 01/06/2012 at 18:35

@ robertallen1 disagreeing with someone by attacking their person show a lack of intelligence, so far you have not proven to me that what I said was wrong. Can science give life? if it cannot then it is helpless when it come to giving life. All science does is invent or discover it cannot create,it cannot take nothing and make something out of it, take for example, Darwin said that man come from monkey, were did monkey come from? can someone tell me, if you say it come from the earth then were did the earth come, if you say it was a big bang then what cause the big bang, and can a big bang create variety? you cannot have variety without a design and you cannot have a design without a designer, same as you cannot have a creation without a creator.

In two blogs, you have come forth as an ignorant jackanape blogging about matters he knows nothing about, such as the writings of Charles Darwin who, for your information, never posited that man came from monkeys, only that man and monkeys share a common ancestor, as does every living thing.

"All science does is invent or discover, it cannot create . . . " is not only contradictory but shallow, pathetic and irrelevant and detracts not a whit from the science you vainly essay to demean. "It [science] cannot take nothing and make something out of it." Don't flatter yourself into believing yourself to possess any greater insight into creation than those with considerably more education.

You and others like you are not only basically ignorant and unintelligent, but endeavor to inflict your ignorance and lack of intelligence on the world at large. Therefore, you and your minions deserve to be attacked down to your very marrow!

over the edge
- 01/06/2012 at 20:13

@Anthony Glaude
"you cannot have a design without a designer, same as you cannot have a creation without a creator. " and this is proof of what? who created the creator? and "Life alone is enough prove and evidence that The Almighty God exist. " if that is true then doesn't that statement prove all gods? or just yours ? you have already shown a lack of understanding of basic science and ignore the overwhelming evidence of evolution. i just have one last question for you why do you argue against science when you clearly don't understand its concepts or do you understand and are purposely misrepresenting it?

Anthony Glaude
- 01/06/2012 at 07:00

God is the author of life, all life come from God. Don't matter how great science is, one thing science cannot do is give something life or bring the dead back to life. Life alone is enough prove and evidence that The Almighty God exist. Science is helpless when it come to life, so then if you did not give yourself live then you are accountable to God for giving life to you. Now there are two forms of life [1] Temporal life [2] Eternal life receiving the eternal life depends on what you do with the temporal life that has been given to you, it like an investment so don't let science rob you of something that it cannot under no circumstance give to you.

@AndyA121
humans and monkeys ((Rhesus monkey in this example) share 93% of our DNA while humans and chimps share 98-99% of DNA . studying the genetic change rates and fossils science estimates the divergence happened 25 million years ago with monkeys and 6 million years ago with chimps. pointing to the exact fossil and saying that it is the common ancestor is problematic. fossils are extremely rare and finding (or claiming a find) the last common ancestor is next to impossible. but we do have enough fossils and other evidence to show many steps along the way. now before you dismiss my explanation how about giving an alternative explanation and we will compare evidence and facts?

AndyA121
- 10/16/2011 at 17:03

Nope! We were never monkeys, not even a little bit, although the way some people act, it makes you wonder. (satire)

…which we are.
not "monkeys" per se, because we didn't evolve from what we would today regard as a monkey (like a chimp or something). simplicity!

Virus Tera
- 09/02/2011 at 06:51

This site is great! One stop shop to many documentaries...Cheers to the owner...Thank you so very much sir :-)

there are A few Doubts ...

What was there before the Random Evolution took place... I rely on Evolutionist to explain?(creationist I already know ur answer ... Designer :-S )

What made humans think a phenomenon called "God"?

Naturally, why not people were simply Atheist? - As now some people claim to be?

How did they get this God Delusion?

Why did human want to put this God or Intelligent Designer above them, like some one controlling them(like an Authority)? please give a scientific explanation not a Zeitgeist(another group of controversial theory people) one!!!!

Why is there not an Equivalent or subordinate or probably a better being like Humans on earth to challenge humans(our) views or atleast hold the same view? WHY ARE WE ALONE PUZZLED WITH ALL SORT OF KNOWLEDGE? (I believe this could help us solve this Evolution/Intelligent Design war once for all right?)

Why are not Evolutionary or Intelligent Design theorist are trying to think about the above question?

Why should not human knowledge of God be considered as an progress towards the right direction in the Evolutionary or Intelligent Design process?

Why do we look down upon our Cannibals brethren? Why is not eating human considered as some sort of EVOLVED ALTRUISM? It really hurts...

Based on the description given by the admin of this forum about what is Scientific:

If Empiricism is the basis of science and science help us understand the universe around? then There should be no scope in science of what ever nature to speak about God,Angels,fairies,hobbits or whatever supernatural, because they are not Empirically observable? So If there is no such Scope in Science why are Evolutionary Atheist like Richard Dawkins being so dogmatic(just like the religious person) in propagating Atheism in the name of Science? One can not scientifically prove or disprove of what one cannot Empirically Observer
It looks so ridiculous of him or any Atheist....It almost seem like all Atheist are bas**rds & desperately searching for their father and ATHEIST HAVE HIJACKED SCIENCE AS THEIR FATHER...

Especially Dawkins being a scientist and having such vast experience...the behavior he exhibit was the last thing to be expected from him...very shameful indeed...If Dawkins behavior should be considered as a common benchmark of Atheistic behavior then I think we are better off with the religious folks...WE DONT WANT ANOTHER STALIN(s)!!!

"What was there before the Random Evolution took place... I rely on Evolutionist to explain?"

the laws of physics.

"What made humans think a phenomenon called "God"?"

well there are a few good theories about this. VERY briefly, one way to think about this is imagine homo sapiens 100,000 years ago. we have a fight or flight response to environmental stimuli. now if leaves rustle in the path infront of you, you can assume it was the wind or you can assume its a snake. if you assume its a snake you will get out of the way and if you assume the wind you will ignore it. if you think its the snake and you move and it is a snake, well you saved your life. if you think its the wind and its a snake, you die. so it is more beneficial for ancient man to be extra cautious and apply AGENTICITY to things that dont have any.

now we add that with the fact that people started coming together in large communities and to bring them together in trusting groups they may have shared similar superstitions. perhaps one superstition was that there is an invisible "police" type being watching over you at all times, this would ensure good behaviour and a better functioning society.

both of these reasons give good explanation for where superstitious belief may have been born and also how it was advantageous and thus propagated and continued.

if you want i could go into this MUCH deeper but it will require some basic knowledge of anthropology and psychology.

"Why is there not an Equivalent or subordinate or probably a better being like Humans on earth to challenge humans(our) views or atleast hold the same view? WHY ARE WE ALONE PUZZLED WITH ALL SORT OF KNOWLEDGE? (I believe this could help us solve this Evolution/Intelligent Design war once for all right?)"

because we so finely filled the evolutionary niche of intelligence. perhaps somewhere else in the universe there is other intelligence or has been other intelligence. perhaps we are the only ones capable of expressing these sentiments or we are not capable of recognizing other species ways. we have been around for a very very short time in the grand scheme of things and in a very very small remote corner of the universe. i dont think you know enough to posit those questions the way you do.

"Why should not human knowledge of God be considered as an progress towards the right direction in the Evolutionary or Intelligent Design process?"

because we cant know the right direction. and like i already showed above, belief in god has been viewed as beneficial but perhaps not actually true. just, perhaps, in this day and age the belief in a god (the way we presently hold that belief) seems to also be very hazardous to a stable functioning society.

"Why do we look down upon our Cannibals brethren? Why is not eating human considered as some sort of EVOLVED ALTRUISM? It really hurts..."

because we know that there are many health side effects of eating ones own species. the better question is why do we not look down upon ourselves more for eating meat?

"why are Evolutionary Atheist like Richard Dawkins being so dogmatic(just like the religious person) in propagating Atheism in the name of Science? One can not scientifically prove or disprove of what one cannot Empirically Observer"

they are being dogmatic in telling people to stop believing in things that have no evidence. one can not disprove that there are not invisible magic fairies in your garden but would you tell people you believe there is? sure maybe you would as long as a few million other people also believed it.

"If Dawkins behavior should be considered as a common benchmark of Atheistic behavior then I think we are better off with the religious folks...WE DONT WANT ANOTHER STALIN(s)!!!"

what behaviour of dawkins is so harmful that you would prefer people who kill abortion doctors or who fly planes into buildings? how could you even compare Stalin with Dawkins....you just blew my mind.

WesB
- 08/13/2011 at 01:54

Fair enough. Also, for the record, I do believe that there is evidence for the evolution of species but I only see that the fossil record shows evolution among the respective classes. A common ancestry of elephants or horses for example are found in the fossil record and one can debate that there are distinctive gaps in their tree's that deny modern elephants are related to the so called pre-historic original.

But I see no evidence based in the fossil record indicating different classes sharing a common ancestor. There are no doubt examples provided but they do not prove to me their intended purpose. If anything, they prove that paleontology has discovered a new animal.

Just think of how say, a fish, might emerge from the sea and adapt itself to the land. If the fish does not undergo a rapid modification in terms of its respiratory, excretory and skeletal systems, it will inevitably die. The chain of mutations that needs to come about has to provide the fish with lung and terrestrial kidneys, immediately. Similarly, this mechanism should transform the fins into feet and provide the sort of skin texture that will hold water inside the body. Furthermore, this chain of mutations has to take place during the lifespan of one single animal.

This seems highly improbable.

So, in conclusion, the way that I see it, until research and discovery prove otherwise, is that according to the fossil record I see species evolving into new species within their respective classes (hopefully I am using the correct terminology) and according to DNA and genetic evolution we see similarities shared among all species and relatively all classes. Which is obvious to even the most simple person. Similarities however, in my mind, are just that and prove no common ancestry because I do not view the fossil record as showing common ancestry among classes. But of course that is my opinion and I do not suggest that you Mr. Allen or anyone else reading this must adhere to.

Thank you for a thought provoking and much need intellectual discussion.

I wish you many blessings in whatever means you see blessings come to you.

A particularly flagrant gaffe is your statement about sea animals evolving into land animals (By the way, the opposite also occurs. It's an interesting cycle). When it comes to millions of years what do you mean by "rapid?" Lungs and kidneys as we know them did not come into being on the spot, but gradually evolved. See Dawkins' discussion of the evolution of the eye contained in several of his videos and books.

As you seem prone to viewing things logically and systematically, I was dumbfounded at your assertion that that all these mutations have to occur during the lifetime of one single animal. What makes you think so? This is as bad as the quantum leap of creationists!

But maybe I can be of some help. Try to view evolution in terms of an odd type of slot machine I once played. On the first spin, the player could stop the two left wheels and keep the others rotating. On the next spin, the player could stop the middle wheel and on the next spin, the player could stop the next reel. This is Darwinism (evolution) Vegas style. Nature keeps those features best adapted to the environment and jettisons and replaces others. This is more than highly probable; it is supported by the evidence.

Something else. Rid yourself of the misconception that one person's opinion is as good as another's. This is simply an abrogation of all thought and analysis. It is not so much the opinion that counts as the competence of the source from which it comes. Let me provide you with two examples.

Jack Horner is a respected paleontologist and an unquestioned expert on tyrannosaurus rex. However, unlike the preponderance of his peers, based on the evidence, he does not believe that the animal was a vicious predator, but rather that it could not have harmed a fly (indicentally, he has stated that he doesn't even like the beast). In other words, Dr. Horner has studied the evidence, come to a different, yet intelligent and respectable conclusion and retained the esteem of his colleagues.

Isaac Newton is another example. Although disproved on certain points, he still retains his place as one of the greatest mathematicians and scientists who ever lived.

Compare the credentials of these two individuals with the credentials of the creationists! That's one of the reason why I advised you to visit a creationist website or two in my last E-mail.

With all this in mind, please rethink your opinion on similarities (and hence differences).

In short, I really wish you would read the Dawkins book I recommended before spouting any more of your conclusions, because so many of them are ignorant and embarassingly ill-founded. By this, I don't mean to put you down for you are honestly searching and for this you deserve to be commended. That you have an inquiring mind is obvious--so put it to good use and learn, learn, learn! (Pardon the sermon.)

Vlatko
- 08/13/2011 at 00:27

@WesB,

For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:

1. Consistent,
2. Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor),
3. Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively),
4. Empirically testable and falsifiable,
5. Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments,
6. Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it),
7. Progressive (refines previous theories),
8. Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty),

Yes, insertion of a supreme being of any nature at all into a scientific equation dilutes science. Because such an insertion is not based on any direct evidence, it is tantamount to ignorance and superstition, the two enemies of science.

As I have explained to you, perhaps not as clearly as I could have, evolution does not deal with how the earth (or for that matter the heavens) began (abiogenesis), only the processes by which things evolve.

At least there's direct evidence for the big bang; there is none for an intelligent designer, only a conjecture out of nowhere.

Remember what I have tried to inculcuate into you, without direct evidence, there is no science.

So is it safe to say that the reason intelligent design is so strongly rejected by evolutionists is because they fear that it is promoting religion?

I fail to see that this is in fact what intelligent design is trying to do. Whether or not one attaches a deity to the title 'Designer' is simply their prerogative is it not? Intelligent design is not anti-science. It looks at all of the scientific discoveries made but comes to a different conclusion than an evolutionist does. Why are these scientists not free to do that?

If I say that tooth decay is caused by bacteria, I can demonstrate this visually by showing through a microscope bacteria eating away at dental enamel. On the other hand, there is no direct evidence to support the claim of intelligent design that complexity implies an intelligent creator and without direct evidence, no claim is scientific and bringing a higher being into it demeans it from science to religion or if you prefer, anti-science. Again, please see Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board which I recommended in my last E-mail to you.

Secondly, I advise you to visit a website set up by creationists and then afterwards state that those who espouse it have considered all the scientific evidence and merely reached a different conclusion. You might be very surprised!

Finally, let me purge you of a misapprehension. It's not a battle of one group of mainstream scientists against another, for few, if any, mainstream scientists espouse intelligent design. It's a battle of science versus religion passing as science.

WesB
- 08/12/2011 at 23:05

Ah! It seems that I have a fan or at least someone invested in my conversion.

Does insertion of a supreme being into the equation demean science though?There doesn't need to be any distinction as to what that being is as far as a deity goes. That can simply be left to the inellegent design scientest conclude on their own apart from the observable evidence.

To bring a higher being into say, the science behind the make-up and functionality of the cell simply implies initial causality or origin of said cell.
Not even evoloution knows exactly how the Universe began, the big bang seems to be the go to explanation, but I do not see why it is so much more plausible to say that there was energy that always existed and then exploded causing the random and gradual development of the universes culmination into what we observe today. Is it any less plausable to say that an intelligent designer created that energy and guided the formation of the universe? This makes much more logical sense to me than the idea of 'order out of chaos', so to speak.

Fake Name
- 08/07/2011 at 05:41

I have faith, faith that man is at heart "good". I have faith in the sun rising and setting until it can no longer produce nuclear fusion at its core, I have faith in the teachings of the many brilliant men and women who throughout history have worked tirelessly to expand our understanding of the world around us. I must have faith in these things, as I haven't a fraction of the intellect of the people that discovered the many beautiful truths we know of about our world. I however have no faith in any system by which any groups of people are abused, neglected or worse. I have no faith in a religion that can not reconcile itself with reality and even more I have a great deal of disdain for the men and women that preach of faith, while making a great deal of money from the sick, the elderly and the fearful to be healed by their "faith". A lie is a lie no matter how appealing , and ALL lies detract from the truth, which is far more beautiful than any portrait of a "last supper" or cathedral mural.

Haven't any of these people supporting ID ever heard of the "Dark Ages" or the inquisition? Maybe they have an excuse for religions literal attack on all the ancient knowledge of the world? Just for example, in South America countless thousands of years worth of stellar observation has been lost due to the Spanish Catholics desecration of the sites containing the inscriptions that recorded the knowledge of the amazing cultures they found there. When will people learn that the original purpose of religion was to record knowledge, it has been hijacked by those that would hide that knowledge for their own selfish purposes. It is far easier to control an uneducated masses than an intelligent masses.

unified field of consciousness is the latest scientific evidence , therefore darwin is wrong and christians are really wrong stop making ridiculas assumptions people and think with your brain do research and advance that is the way to answers

Religion and intelligent design theory are not one and the same.Is it so inconceivable that the creative process is a work forever in progress ? The creator wasn't allowed to start from scratch? Quantum level behavior is renowned for being 'counter intuitive' and little understood but is totally accepted by the scientific community. The nature of the intelligent designer is beyond us and yet surrounds us within and without.

norlavine - "Religion and intelligent design theory are not one and the same."

GG - Not in the obvious sense, anyway, and that by disingenuous, dishonest design. So-called "intelligent design" is the covert strategy of fundamentalists to wedge religion into the curriculum, and replace legitimate knowledge acquisition. Think about it: Once your text book says "Problem solved, we come from God (who goes by the name of 'Jesus')" then there is nothing more to learn about where we came from. This is the point of religion, to dictate what we must know, rather than test our questions.

On the balance of it, all considerations being equal, there is good evidence for pursuing the evolutionary origin of species, and the creationist is able to provide exactly zero substance to their belief. Belief is the operative word, too, because belief is all they have. Evolution has taxonomy on its side, at least. The creationists also tend to use patently false rationalizations in their very weak attempts to discredit science, such as the specious and regurgitated "no missing link" line of reasoning.

As soon as I hear the counter argument "show us the missing link" I know this person isn't really interested in problem solving, only blindly upholding their cultural religious tradition.

Science, by comparison, is a-cultural, imperfect, aware of its imperfection, and always striving toward perfection. Religion presumes to be perfect, and has no need to try because it is satisfied with the interpretations of its clergy. Now its clergy have usurped science. Religion means not having to think, because someone else has thought it all out for you ahead of time.

Will science arrive at a conclusion that the origin of life was intelligently designed? Maybe or maybe not. But we aren’t there yet, not even close. The creationist has already decided, a priori, which is to say ahead of all evidentiary support that some divine entity created life. That is their starting position. That creationists allow clowns like Kirk Cameron to represent them with irrelevant examples like the banana or the “crocoduck” only drives home the point that they really don’t care too much about discipline or the rigorous testing of hypotheses.

norlavine - "Dawkins has always been on a humourless mission against anything that could possibly be discovered more intelligent than himself."

GG - So far he hasn't found them. Not among the creationists, anyway.

robertallen1
- 06/27/2011 at 16:57

One of the more intelligent posts.

Are you familiar with Kitzwilliam v. Dover Unified School District. If not, there is a fine documentary on it in Top Documentaries as well as an equally excellent post in Wikipedia.

gallowaygrumblefield
- 06/27/2011 at 17:19

I'm not familiar with Kitzwilliam v. Dover Unified School District, and am only just now looking it up. I'm familiar with the Georgia case, but not this one. It amazes me that we're still battling medieval superstition in 2011. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Achems_Razor
- 06/27/2011 at 17:04

Again you are portraying your ad hoc, scenario about a creator, again I say give us some empirical evidence.

Quantum level theory, quantum field theory is well understood, and is very precise.

His Forever
- 06/27/2011 at 17:45

What would you consider "empirical evidence"? That's one reason why they call it "faith" Mr. Razor.

Achems_Razor
- 06/27/2011 at 21:32

@C_and_N:

We have been through this many times Charles.

Faith alone just does not cut it, your gods are just in your mind, nothing real and tangible, invisible, telepathic deities that you speak to does not make it real. Many books written of the countless gods throughout history are all just words, all that is only subjective. Give me some objective evidence that any god does exist.

AtheistTroll
- 05/05/2011 at 05:25

Thank science I thought this would be Creationist propaganda but so far its quite the opposite. I feared this was in support of ID but after I finished watching its clearly in favor of evolution without actually stating that ID is wrong.

The narration was non-judgmental, but Dawkins, et al. quite clearly pointed out the wrongs of ID. Its basis was the theory of "irreducible simplicity" which was shown to be flawed. Also, the Christian fundamentalist underpinnings of ID were exposed.

norlavine
- 06/27/2011 at 15:32

Dawkins has always been on a humourless mission against anything that could possibly be discovered more intelligent than himself. x

AlfBeta
- 06/27/2011 at 16:55

@norlavine. "Dawkins has always been on..." That's not bad!, I've been thinking of piping up about this fella for awhile, hadn't quite decided what to say, but I have to say you nailed something there, i laughed with recognition.

Old Git Tom
- 02/17/2011 at 06:52

Lary Nine,
Friedman was a charlatan, promoted for political reasons - probably his Nobel as well (another story). We've had 30 years of empirical proof of the disastrous results.

It's largely a myth that any golden age of academic freedom ever existed. 17C France realized the economic importance of science, & the gov stepped in, followed by Britain. Go back. In Renaissance Italy, some city-state universities were openly atheist. That was in order to assert the city/merchant indpendence from the Papal states. The pope had his own army - or two; heavy!

So it goes on. Today the drug/food industry waves its funding mojo stick over biology, which clings to the 19C dogma that animals/humans are bio-machines. That is a quaint & unscientific credo of a brutish & ignorant past, retained for economic & political expediency. OGT

@All & OGT, too~~
As to Friedman economics...my thinking has always been...OK. You can have your "Calvin-Coolidge-the-business-of-America-is-Business" free enterprise but please regulate it rigorously and do leave me out of it to make my own living and build-up American culture, arts and letters in my own way. That's real Freedom.
Authentic liberty, in IMHO, is currently being eroded by all the culturally sterile, geedy capitalistic, trough-swine s*cking, commercial interrupting, brand-naming, corporate-elitists nationwide.

@OGT~
I'll concede that back in the 60 and 70s "the academy" was insulated from free market capitalism much more than it is today. Ever since Reagan in the 80s there has been a gradual takeover of institutions like education that were formerly considered exempt from profit motivated management. The recent "Citizens' United" decision by today's right-wing court is just the latest in a long series of encroachments by Friedman-esque economic theories--- BTW, about which I become apoplectic just thinking about them.

I ever work in an academic venue/context? Not really, just on the fringes, like studying same from outside.

Cut a long story short, funding has become the great, predominant issue in higher education. Metaphorically, it is now the 'strong force'. In relation, academic freedom & integrity have been reduced to 'weak forces' - if they ever were very strong! That's the reality. It is unscientific to close our eyes to things we find unpleasant.

But not only sciences; across the board, universities have tended to become comfortable holding tanks for radical & innovative thinkers. They converse there only internally, in their own incomprhensible academese patois - rather like prisoners banging out messages on the pipes.

Isolated from society at large, they are less likely to upset any of the established rackets of the status quo. Discretional lockjaw is rewarded with tenure. OGT

People on the opposite side of an issue from the facts always claim they are being kept out by the man.

Other Ryan
- 02/16/2011 at 02:29

Darwin didn't shatter shit. That's revisionist history. He was one among an entire scientific community that was making these 'discoveries'. He just prevailed as history's hero because he was an aristocrat.

the 'academies' are funded by the same money, however filtered & laundered en route. The major league universities globally are a vast 'business', becoz modern research demands heavy investment. That is why govs are so 'interested' in higher education. They are big directors of state funds, which is often weapons research in disguise.

A large, modern university is a mini-state. Those focussed intensely on their own research often have little or no u/standing of how money controls its direction, from the remote top, downwards.

Tragically, free-to-cheap energy is a politically fraught area where only a brave &/or reckless few dare to tread. That is why the garage inventors who discover it are crushed amidst cries of, "No scientific proof".

Even Pons, Fleishmann & Utah Univ. were not big enuf to buck the system. OGT

@lakho~
Smells like Discovery Institute.
@OGT~
Yeah. I hear you LAC. But I meant scientists within the academy more so than employees of high tech industries and Big Pharma. IMHO they shouldn't count as they are suspect by virtue of who signs their paychecks.

there was one I know, Celestine V (1294), a hermit murdered by the next guy, who needed the job. Beyond the papacy, there were countless monastic orders, like the Franciscans, who embraced poverty. Some of the monks were keen scientists, like Roger Bacon.

Larry Nine,

many scientists are in hock to Big Pharma, agribusiness & the arms industries for research funding. Cheap energy is a no-go area of research, thanks to the Vogons of the oil hootenanny. "There is no such thing as a free lunch" is right-wing political ideology, not a scientific principle.

Pons & Fleiscmann had their reputations destroyed for their breakthru in cold fusion. Contrary to the mass media propaganda machine, their results have been replicated many times globally. Alas, I fear any nation challenging the energy industry will be subjected to showers of neutron bombs. But that's politics, a very dirty business that scientific chappies in spotless white coats know little about, if they know what's good for them. OGT

@Iakho...
Are you referring to The Discovery Institute? If so, it's hardly a think tank... more like an "eisegesis factory".
@OGT~
Since when have scientists been 'on the take'...when was the last science scandal that involved bribery and fudged experimental results? What was it? Piltdown Man...which was a prank anyway? Scientists wouldn't give their mothers a break in peer review!

mebbe, but posters here have their own ideas, which on balance seem better than those of Meyer. As for profit being a 'classical' motivation of religion, hardly. Eg., for centuries, the RC church banned usury, & was one of several religions that extolled poverty. More: if you think science is immune to the bribery & threats of big business, you've been seriously misled. OGT

you will find many individuals on both sides who are ill-informed. What the religious tend to reject is the nineteenth-century form of materialism that underlies Darwinism. 'Science' actually left that behind with Einstein & quantum physics. Biology clings to it, for some rather unscientific reasons, IMHO.

Insofar as it has any philosophy, physics is into idealism/metaphysics. Some are hostile to this suggestion, imagining that idealism equates with magic & superstition. Not so, but science courses are usually too dense & intense to allow exploration of philos & kindred areas. OGT

@Otter Nonsense~
Sure the Catholics do it! They even have a Vatican Observatory and a chief astronomer priest. The Pope has already given two big thumbs-up on The Big bang and Evolutionary biology...they're not going to buck the inevitable. Adapt!Adapt!Adapt!
Thae argument to reject evolution because it's supposed to be incompatible with faith is a false claim.

rather than the obscure 'intellectual shirefolk', how about the clearer 'rednecks'? You find them on both sides of the rather futile religion-versus-Darwinism debates. They are fact-deficient, & usually abusive, sooner or later.

Richard Dawkins tells how one redneck 'Christian' hoped he would rot in hell. On the other hand, a whole bunch of pro-Darwin rednecks was organized for such low-down, dirty polemics. Then 'pro-science' gents in ye olde Oxforde were disturbed to find that the transatlantic organizer was allegedly blowing their pound notes on luxury trips & such. Or so the press story went, & excuse my titters. OGT

Ah, it seems that you have discombobulated @Lary Nine: a bit, by your heuristic analysis of his juvenile, puerile, jejune reflections, he of course should understand that he is conversing with the big boys now, and keep his patronizing to the bare minimum.

Amazing, as in his comment 71# on "why are we here", he has not told you what your user name should be?

@OGT~
WTF? I was answering your question about D-K's usage of "intellectual shirefolk" to the best of my ability, I was speculating as to what D-K might have meant by it in his comment. It had absolutely nothing to do with "data about your person". Read it again and if you find that you can't confirm this, then my comment was not clearly written.
Additionally, I don't understand why you are taking such an aggressive, sarcastic tone toward me since what I posted was in agreement with your previous comments, all of which I took the time to read and found admirably sound.

PS: You were right about Professor Dawkins...he was Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008. Apologies...it was an error. I often conflate those two premier uppercrust Brittish universities.

“And Dawkins is the professor in charge of public understanding of science (or some such thing) at Cambridge. Thus, his field work is long since among his proven bona fides.”

Dawkins is Oxford. Exemplary ‘bona fides’ did not save Rupert Sheldrake from a 25-year career hiatus when he broke from Darwinian ranks.

As to ‘intellectual shire-folk’, thanks. Didn’t know, so I bow to your greater knowledge of children’s fiction –

“Hobbits and therefore to mean those among us who are science lovers but scientific rustics—a pastoral community of hairy-footed, pipeweed smoking amateur intellectuals content to sit by the fireplace after a good meal, blowing smoke rings and debating science and such.”

As opposed to professionals, those paid to publicize self-contradictory, obsolete, 19C ‘science’? In respect of which, are you being paid, or amateur? If the former, can you tell us by which scientific method you gained your data about my person? The world waits details of this astounding new supra-empirical, scientific breakthru you have made. OGT

@Old Git Tom~
"D-K,
Hi; what exactly are ‘intellectual shirefolk’?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I took it be an oblique reference to erudite Hobbits and therefore to mean those among us who are science lovers but scientific rustics---a pastoral community of hairy-footed, pipeweed smoking amateur intellectuals content to sit by the fireplace after a good meal, blowing smoke rings and debating science and such.

@Old Git Tom~
Epicurus is so sadly wrong and you are genuinely right, sir. And Dawkins is the professor in charge of public understanding of science (or some such thing) at Cambridge. Thus, his field work is long since among his proven bona fides.

Well yes and no. I agree on the statement you make on the progression and roots of math but you see our math may only be effective to our form of conciseness and way of computing our perceptions in our brains.

Hypothetically, if other life in the universe were to exist it is not a sure thing that they would even understand ours or us theirs. Life is life but our state of being most likely is our unique state alone. Even other animale are conscious but not so on our level. Similarities yes but no synonymous.

My point actually being that we can take anything we perceive and anything we can test and apply or gain a mathematical equivalent but we might be and probably will be the only ones to even see it as useful and make sense out of it and/or use it as a tool to explain.

eireannach666,
nice, but IMHO, math does not belong "Only to us". Mathematics had ancient roots in mysticks & astronomy. It progressed with logic developed by/from the medievals - mainly churchmen & Moslem scholars (& gamblers). A mix of maths & logic in the past century was necessary for birth of computer science.

So science & math are integral parts of the continuum of human experience & knowledge - like philosophy. Different tools for different jobs; for certain tasks, math is no universal 'organum', but as useful as a rubber screwdriver. Yet of course, stunning in other things it can do - magical to us who don't u/stand.

A bow to your above gentlemanly concession. That proves you are also a scholar, as I am also s/times a pedantic old ponce. OGT

Very well said! Ok as far as maths being our creation and chosen means of expressing the value of our observations and data, I have to agree with you- I can't argue with you there. You agree then with me on that. What cha' drinking?

(However we apply these maths to pretty much everything and can show the mathematical stamp in a form we can interpret and explain to other." Two plus Two is Four even on mars." But only to us. So yes good point.

yes, mathethematics is indeed an 'abstract' language. It is the lingo of idealism. It is abstracted from materialism.

But ordinary language does nor 'fail' us. It is far more comprehensive & rich than puny maths. It is the foundation of human intelligence. Maths is smply an ideal tool of science & technology. Language is superior & prior to it. If you doubt me, go to a meeting of mathematicians & note how verbose they are.

Russell et al tried pulling mathematical rank above language over a century back. He failed. When will you arrogant sons of science get out of that Victorian antiques shop? OGT

Mathematics is an abstract language able to explain phenomena where words fail us. Newton saw the effects of gravity and expressed it with a formula which states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

If Newton would be purely philosophical about it our understanding of gravity would be modest in comparison to say the least.

why should I know anything you know, except you tell me? The proof of your relevant knowledge can only be how well/badly you address the issues debated here. And you are avoiding the substantive one, IMHO.

Materialism versus idealism; modern physics is idealism in action, altho many scientists would rather commit slow hari-kiri than admit it. They have to live with their slower-paced biology colleagues. One shining exception is prof. Paul Davies.

All maths & logic are idealist constructs. They do not exist in the phenomenal universe, only in human heads, as far as we know; very like ethics. Some particles do not 'exist' unless s/one observes.

Dawkins had a stab at reconciling ideas with a material universe ('memes'), & failed clumsily. To be fair, so do many philosophers, which is why idealism is so attractive an option.

Newton would probably never have stumbled upon gravity, if he had looked exclusively for empirical evidence. He observed merely gravity's effects, & then made a theory to explain them. Science is still trying to detect gravity itself. OGT

Like me you say? Oh tom,tom,tom. How little you know of me and my knowledge of physics and where it is going. Shame on you for your philosophical assumption. And I have to disagree with your mathematics alone theory, as we put everything into numbers, it is incorrect for you to state mathematics alone is insufficient. As we explore the cosmos and as we advance our knowledge as to how the quantum level mathematical scheme does not apply to the same rules we classically know and refer too as pertaining to our simple observational world , we also advance our maths and advance our mechanics to new understandings to explain these new findings. By which never once having to be philosophical about it. You state how old newtonian and darwinian science is, well how old is philosophy? Ancient. We don't have to philosophize math or of its roots or to where its going only theorize what is going next based on the observed results from testing and theorize where next to go based on the calculated mathematical probabilities. No philosophy just math.

Once again I say," Philosophy bakes no bread and math keeps pulling loafs out already sliced into neat and even slices of explained science."

Dawkins tries to give some semblance of scientific respectability to obsolete, 19c materialism. Physics left this old twaddle behind a century back. Dawkins is on safe ground with the general public, since it has little grasp of what physics has been discovering. Like you, it clings to 'common sense' materialism - ie., the kinds of ideas that struck great-great-grandad as ludicrous, & plumb impossible.

Philosophy bakes about as much bread as pure mathematics, & both are equally irrelevant to those who live by bread alone. I like some intellectual meat with mine. OGT

Nah man, I don't disagree with a lot of what youu were saying except that in which was pointed out. Also I must say your philosophical stance into science leaves too much room for misinterpretation and poor judgment.
And I will say that philosophy bakes no bread ,rather ends up making a concoction of religion and supernatural. Not saying you are religious but saying that you are leaving room for these things to interfere with th facts presented and throw off your interpatation by being too open. There is a such thing as this. In fact Dawkins said it himself,"so open that your mind falls out."

All I'm saying.

Oh thanks Randy for letting me steal that from you and whomever coined the phrase.(No bread). Slainte for that.

as far as I can understand (not much), your posts do not address the points I made in the preceding debate. My central issue was materialism versus idealism in science, not science versus religion. But, your privilege to blow any tune you fancy. OGT

Anyways basically your saying that the BBT is wrong and that evolution started only after the big bang , assuming it to be fact and not just a theory Correct? Boy I love that excuse,when people say "but its called a theory!" Yes not a hypothesis , or assumption but theory derived from the facts presented. Just like I have a theory the guy on the ground withe the Five holes in him and the brass casings and smokey sulfur smell lingurung , just got shot....oh but wait , theoretically because I don't have the gun or the guy,right?

Then you say that Dawkins is some kind of Darwin fundy and that makes him wrong because physics took things to another peak of understanding? Don't you understand that if it wasn't for people like Chuck D there wouldn't be an evolution, well maybe,still point being that otherwise we'd all be walking around in a big pile of god-poon and. Jesux stew. Which obviously got it wrong considering every single claim has nothing behind it to back it, so we'd still be thinking our wives and daughters came from a rib instead of from knockin boots without a helmet on.

(Quick question to anyone religious, its rhetoric kinda but if a man had three or more daughters and they all were made from a rib, then. How does he keep regnerating these ribs? I would love to put that spell on a cow or pig. Bar-ba-chue-baby!)

.(Hmmm sounds good. Jesux stew. I'm writing a recipe for that! Every easter from now on I'm having "jesux stew for easter! I'm glad I got side tracked there,my bad.")

It took him doing his part as Newton did his , to enlighten the next generation. Good thing about science, don't have to be 100% right at first,unlike some systems of universal creation *cough*religion where the claim is so outrageous it requires even more outrageous evidence to prove it,(I'm just sayin...Carl Sagan.) Which we are still waiting on, and so forever will be since its nonsense..

Fact is, evolution on the scale of the universe/universes had to have started a lot longer than right after the big bang. You still have to account for the period of time before , what then, I mean was not there something? There would have to be in order for anything to even go bang. Or did god just eat too many pinto beans?

But don't knock a person for getting it half right like Newton, then you'd have to pick on every great mind. So I guess Eienstein wasn't anything since QT/M knd of throws his laws of universal gravitation/relativity to the side huh? I mean because technically we are made of nothing but subatomic matters, star stuff, and gravity's laws in the quantum really don't have to listen to ole Eienstein. And that's all tht matters is us digging deeper, so everything we percieve in our 4D point of view is technically bogus seeing as how its distorted and we never really see all of what really goes on around us at any given time.

Alls I'm saying is don't hate dawkins because he is a bible basher or a evolution/darwin junky. That's like getting upset that Feynman likes Honey nut cheerios and does commercials for them for free because it reminds him of an electron.

Neways I'm sure your response if any will be a bunch more jibber jabber about dogmatic this 'n' that so hurry up and get it out. But don't let the hate run you man, u gotta let it out.

you claim -
“i know Richard Dawkins work very well, yes i own and have read all of his books and also watched all his lectures and documentaries.”

But in fact, I fear not. Being indulgent, I can accept that your eyes moved over the material, but your brain absorbed next to nothing. My evidence for this is in your own, earlier statements. Eg., -

“who is this “neo-darwinian” group you keep bringing up? and what does their position have to do with anything? why do you keep mentioning it?”

Repeating? I’m finding it tiresome too. If you know anything about Dawkins’ books, you will know he describes himself as a Neo-darwinian. He really bangs on about it, since he wants to affirm the continuing, strong relevance of fundamental Darwin, yet add it to modern evolution theory. The latter incorporates modern genetics, DNA, etc. He further claims that Neo-darwinism is the established outlook of evolutionists & biology in general. If these two categories differ, I’ve yet to hear of any biology big guns disagreeing. You obviously know little of all this.

Again you put your foot in it with -
“PS: just because Dawkins lectures on something, doesnt make it academic dogma. we never learn “neo-darwinism” we learn the merging of genetics with the theory of natural selection.”

His main career is not in lecturing but defending Darwin, with books for a mass readership. He is world-renowned as the champion of Darwinism against creationism & intelligent design. And dunce! Neo-darwinism IS the theory of natural selection plus genetics (Mendel, Crick, Watson, etc.).

More crass mouth & footwork from you -
“people who use the term “neo-darwinism” are most often the people who dont accept evolution.”

Give me strength: how on earth could anyone invoking any form of Darwinism be rejecting evolution? Are you seriously suggesting Dawkins is anti-evolution?

More knowledged-starved rubbish -
“but like Dawkins stated. until we can show epigenetics carrying on traits over MULTIPLE generations, then it certainly doesnt change Darwins theory.”

OMG! That is NOT Darwin’s theory, that is Dawkins’ theory (as a Neo-darwinian, who you first doubted, now cite as an authority!). As I flogged myself near to death trying to teach you before, Darwin himself was so keen to deny that any acquired characteristics could be transmitted, that he changed the second edition of ‘Origin’. He considered the point to be so fundamentally important. How many generations are involved is also an important issue, but does not change the principle. If epigenetics does just that, Darwin’s theory falls, as does Neo-darwinism. You cannot both reformulate Darwin’s theory, yet claim its living continuity. That is dishonest &/or contradictory. Polly is either alive, or it is a dead parrot.

Similarly, in cosmology, Einstein did not add some embellishments to Newton’s theory, he supplied a superior replacement. Newton thence became a dead, but much-revered, parrot. Stuffing Darwin’s dead theory & nailing it to a perch does not make it alive, except as an object of worship for the incurably dogmatic & brain-dead.

I will debate with anyone, however ignorant. I refuse those too opinionated to learn anything. OGT

@OGT, to think i dont know who Richard Dawkins is, is hilarious. i didnt bite on your baiting me with richard dawkins because people like you will say that i just view him as some dogma maker and treat him as a god of evolution. kind of like you are trying to do to Darwin. but i know Richard Dawkins work very well, yes i own and have read all of his books and also watched all his lectures and documentaries.

its not an ad hominem to point that the mans past experiments are nothing but pseudoscience that is not even done correctly and not able to be replicated. not to mention his ability to IGNORE peer review.

i dont need to know everything about a man to know what he does is not real science. hell just claiming that he does work outside the lab so there is too many variables is an absolute copout. he does them in a way that is not controlled as to make them unfalsifiable.

you keep saying you take your understanding from "origins".....you do realize that is very very old and has been updated. it is not the end all of evolutionary theory and not ONE scientist would claim it is.

you know as well as i do that epigenetics does not discredit Darwins theory of evolution. it has added to it just like genetics.

but like Dawkins stated. until we can show epigenetics carrying on traits over MULTIPLE generations, then it certainly doesnt change Darwins theory.

I have given Dawkins a more than fair go. He finally doesn’t make any more sense than you do. He is so deluded, he launched his theory about ‘memes’ without knowing he was dabbling in idealism, not materialism. He is highly intelligent & a competent professional, but he is floundering outside his narrow field. The meme is no more or less an entity of legitimate, scientific study than Sheldrake’s morphic field. Only the opinionated & fanatically dogmatic pre-judge such studies – & the great unwashed who believe in ‘successful’ experiments.
You splutter - “also about Rupert Sheldrake….the man is a pseudoscientist….but yes good example. someone who tries to show telepathy, or humans having the ability to tell if they are being looked at…or dogs that know their owners are coming home.”
That is a squalid ad hominem. 'Telepathy' appears in particle physics. Sheldrake was an established & respected pro, but only before his anti-Darwinian heresies! You should be ashamed of yourself. Where did you get the above info? Google? You have not read any Sheldrake books or articles, have you? You know next to nothing of his scientific career, qualifications or research, do you? A few posts back, you seemed not even to know who Dawkins was. Really! You need to learn to walk before running, & even more so before taking wild swings.
That research results like Sheldrake’s are challenged does not prove his work is discredited. The peer review process is PRECISELY to allow such rigorous debate, & all the more vigorous here, given the radical implications of Sheldrake’s work. Sorry, but once again, you display your lack of experience. Research programs are smooth-running production lines only where mediocrities are manning the lab benches.
If you had more knowledge you would know that experimentation outside the lab (as with Sheldrake) is very difficult, since so many uncontrollable variables make the following statistical analyses open to competing treatments & interpretations. Another reason for this is that mathematics is reliable where it is not applied to the actual world. Wherever it is, as in the Sheldrake series, it is open to doubt (Einstein, 1930s).
By all means go back to your school studies. I hope you do well enuf to learn about what it is you are vainly trying to defend. I doubt you will be taught that the essence of maths is idealism, which is why it is so universally applicable & useful. OGT

I take my understandings of Darwinism from 'Origin', Dawkins, & other exponents. If I don't 'understand', does anybody? If you have an relevant points to make re the substantial criticisms I raise, I'd be glad to address them. Otherwise, - - - - - OGT

You are completely wrong about Richard Dawkins.
you can hear what he thinks about epigenetics here.

youtube . com/watch?v=37u-VkSYKFE

now you can stop speaking for others.

also about Rupert Sheldrake....the man is a pseudoscientist....but yes good example. someone who tries to show telepathy, or humans having the ability to tell if they are being looked at...or dogs that know their owners are coming home.

even after participating in a recreation of one of his experiments with someone who was skeptical and he was shown to be wrong he STILL insisted he was right then continued publishing himself because he CANT PASS PEER REVIEW.

you have made a lot of posts and have said absolutely nothing. i have too much work with school to be having this pointless back and forth with someone too stubborn to accept that they were wrong.

Are you being serious? Honestly, you're lack of understanding of both Darwin's theory and science in general brings tears of laughter to my eyes - what were you doing while everyone else went to school? Your statement is a complete load of nonsense - you can't even construct a argument that is followable never mind correct. There is NO stalemate - and if you or anyone else could blow away Darwin's theory, Dawkins would be first in line to shake your hand - this is the nature of science, my friend, it's not just a bunch of people dreaming sh*t up - peer review, testing, re-testing and evidence. Unfortunately, you will not be able to understand this.

I’ve read some of Dawkins’ books, watched his vids & listened to his radio broadcasts – you apparently haven’t. They can be summarised as an extended apologia for Darwinian fundamentalism. The core of this is a defence of the kind of 19c materialism that physics left behind about 100 years ago. Dawkins is the preeminent PR man of the biology Establishment. If he were intellectually honest enuf to encapsulate this position in a slogan, it would be, “Darwin was right, is right, & evermore will be right”.

Rupert Sheldrake was brave enuf to beard the Establishment with a non-Darwinian approach. He was blocked from research grants & employment for 25 years. By self-financing, he continued his work, with published, promising results. Most dissentng biologists keep their mouths shut, knowing what will happen otherwise.

The framework of Darwinism will not allow, cannot tell ‘the story of life’s beginnings’ w/out self-contradiction. It is inadequate, since it makes a fundamental dichotomy between life-forms & matter. If it argues that life can arise from matter, than bang goes its fundamental materialism – why Darwinians mocked Cuvier’s animism. If on the other hand the Darwinians insist on their fundamental that life is distinct from matter, then they cut themselves off from modern physics, as represented by the Big Bang line of research. This is a matter of logical categories, not research. The logic makes the difference between talking sense & nonsense.

That is the present stalemate. It can only be resolved by putting Darwin in the museum alongside Newton. It seems Dawkins et al would rather face an eternity wriggling on the horns of this dilemma than give up their fundamentalist, Darwinian faith.

Paradigm shift: there comes a time when every scientific theory must move aside for s/thing better or more comprehensive. OGT

you are absolutely wrong. not a single scientist out there thinks darwin was absolutely right. we have TONNES of information Darwin never dreamed of. no one is arguing that Darwin is some god.

Saying Darwin was wrong in certain aspects is certainly NOT academic suicide. if you are able to provide support for your thesis and have it peer reviewed and repeated then you are rewarded not ostracized.

Can you show some examples of people committing professional suicide by arguing against Darwin? and if you try to use Expelled i will first chuckle then direct you to expelled refuted. those people did not "question darwin", what they did was try to have religion taught in science class. that is a no-no.

and i fully agree that evolution says NOTHING about creation it only refers to how life changes after it is already here. for creation of life you need to look to abiogenesis. the work by miller and urey is being looked at again with new technology and is very promising.

I'd only comment that evolution does not address creation. Strictly speaking, evolution begins after creation of the universe. 'Big bang' is actually just a theory for encapsulating what is unknown & possibly indescribable. Much the same as the idea of 'God'? OGT

“i have provided you with AMPLE academic evidence to support the fact that epigenetics does not refute darwin - - - - - “.

No: what you have given me is large quantities of low-quality info from the pro-Darwin camp – which is the greater part of biology.

As I put to you thrice now, epigenetics contradicts the base principle that acquired characteristics are not transmitted. That leaves Darwinians with a dilemma. To accept these findings of modern sciene & is to tacitly concede Darwin’s theory is obsolete. Darwinians cannot simply graft this new insight onto the old formulation & claim it is still fundamentally the same. It cannot be. A theory cannot contain two diametrically opposed principles. That is not science, it is idiocy.

All you have to do is admit fundamental Darwinism is now old hat, & we can move on, or maybe biology might move on a mite more smartly.

In smilar vein, the findings of directed, purposive evolution in bacteria, publicized by Bloom, support Lamarck’s view, not Darwin’s, as I keep saying, & you keep ignoring.

I am not advocating a return to Lamarck’s late 18th century science, just angry that another great scientist is used as a rag to polish that UK national idol & ideologue, Darwin. Like with Freud, we are in his debt, but not bound to his corpse for ever. Brilliant ideas should not blind us, or we can miss the better ones coming along just behind.

I have great admiration for Darwin, but not for his dogmatic followers. They have safety in numbers, they have great power & quantities of invalid evidence, they shout loudly, & they do not scruple to silence opposing, minority scientists’ views.

Any biologist who openly questions Darwin commits professional suicide. Yes, it really is that bad. S/he is barred from research grants & employment – pure Stalinism.

They won’t tell you this in institutes of higher learning, but physics is embarrassed by the backwardness of biology. The latter cleaves to a 19th century form of materialism. Physics transcended that mind-block about a century ago. The biology Establishment knows this, which makes it fearful & doubly intolerant of ‘heretics’. OGT

the source you used was fairly standard-issue, pro-Darwin flannel. However, anonymous cites are an unforgivable solecism. From which the firing squad is a merciful release. I am only doing my intellectual duty. Cigarette? OGT

Sorry, of course you would have thought that I was quoting an anonimous source :). But the issue here is different, I wouldn't get into any discussion about this topic personally, I just have this little 'thing' with my 'friend' Epi :) - if you compare what I cited above, you will see that it is actually what he used as argument in the post above mine. He rarely writes anything on his own but uses different sources which he copy-pastes. Well, this source was anonimous... I just like to point out his sources, it's a kind of fun for me...

To return to issue; I adamantly repeat, Lamarck was right that acquired characteristics can be transmitted genetically. So on this, Darwin was indubitably WRONG, & monsieur Lamarck was absolument RIGHT. Sorry Darwinians, but you will have to perform extreme facial & verbal contortions to get your gums round that intrusive anomaly.

As to 'need', or purposive/teleological behavior in genetics, Bloom cites research that tracks survival tactics of bacteria. Briefly, crudely, when their environment is radically challenged, they can disassemble & reassemble their code to accomodate & survive. Pretty cool, eh?

Supplementary proof that Lamarck got things right where the blessed, secular saint of materialism did not. OGT

Darwin said many things of an ambiguous & ambivalent kind, since as you say, he did not know. That's why he only claimed a modest 'theory' - unlike his more ambitious & arrogant followers.

His theory remains a theory. It was not 'proven' by Mendel's proto-genetics, since the good monk's experiments were limited to artificially-bred plants, not natural species in the wild. As Darwin himself knew, bred & artificial species, left to their own devices, simply revert, or devolve, to feral pattern. There is no 'evolution' proven, just temporary modification under the guiding hand of human intelligence.

The role of random gene change is speculative & controversial. Counter-evidence is mounting, why I cited Howard Bloom's useful website re the intelligent adaptation of bacteria. This also challenges another of Darwin's foundation principles, that
evolution is only thru the individual organism, not the group. A corollary of this is that group cooperation is at least as powerful an engine of evolution as competition.

Neither was Darwin proven by Crick & Watson's discovery. DNA behaves in a far more sophisticated way than is demanded by Darwin's mechanistic, materialist theory.

You are still struggling with the base issue here, ie., " - nothing about epigenetics shows evolution wrong."

Sure, but the issue is not 'evolution', it is Darwin's version. Epigenetics knocks out one major support of that theory. What you are left with is not Darwin's theory. You cannot modify it retrospectively to save the blushes of contemporary Darwinians.

The SS Darwin is a hulk riddled with holes. Biologists still desperately cling to its deck since they have no alternative materialist theory to swim to.

Lamarck & the scientists of the French Revolution account for far more than 1% of Darwin's theory. Just one eg., they pioneered atheist/materialist ideas, so making Darwin's path that much easier.

Like all scientists, he was dependent on the work of his fore-runners. Science is a continuum of activity, & yet Lamarck still edges Darwin in the above respect, despite coming half a century earlier. OGT

(This is a quote by an anonymous responder, who calls himself 'academic', to the question on Yahoo!Answers on How Wrong Was Lamarck?)

"Lamarck led the way for and had ideas that helped Darwin. However, his observations regarding the mechanisms of evolution were, with the exception of one, totally backwards.

To summarize Lamarck, he hypothesized that organisms somehow had a choice in their traits and could change to fit the environment (he called these ideas his theories of need and his theory of use and disuse). The part he was correct on was that should an organism change, they would pass the traits on to their offspring.

Darwin said, basically, the opposite. Darwin observed that organisms were born with slight differences (variations) and those variations might give some members of a species an advantage in the struggle to survive in the environment. The reward for survival was that the organism got to reproduce and pass those traits on to their offspring. Of course, the offspring might show some variation and the whole process would continue to repeat.

However, the bottom line with Darwin (and contrary to Lamarck) was that an organism had no choice in its traits as an organism is born with or without the advantage. Darwin, without knowing its mechanisms, recognized that genetics played a part in evolution.

Darwin died not knowing of Mendel's work on genetics which, of course, substantiates Darwin's theory."

To summarize Lamarck, he hypothesized that organisms somehow had a choice in their traits and could change to fit the environment (he called these ideas his theories of need and his theory of use and disuse). The part he was correct on was that should an organism change, they would pass the traits on to their offspring.

Darwin said, basically, the opposite. Darwin observed that organisms were born with slight differences (variations) and those variations might give some members of a species an advantage in the struggle to survive in the environment. The reward for survival was that the organism got to reproduce and pass those traits on to their offspring. Of course, the offspring might show some variation and the whole process would continue to repeat.

However, the bottom line with Darwin (and contrary to Lamarck) was that an organism had no choice in its traits as an organism is born with or without the advantage. Darwin, without knowing its mechanisms, recognized that genetics played a part in evolution.

Darwin died not knowing of Mendel's work on genetics which, of course, substantiates Darwin's theory.

you can search for yourself but Epigenetics does not confirm Lamarck and CERTAINLY does not negate Darwin. I have quoted straight from Origin (not the first edition) AND a paper he did with Wallace. both show that he understood there was something else working.

No one has EVER said Darwin got it exactly right. We all know Darwin didnt have the luxury of studying genetics. but nothing about epigenetics shows evolution wrong.

“- no one is a defender of DARWINISM. defenders of evolution, and the theory of evolution.”

If you check what you wrote after, I think you will find you are one, or trying to be. Like many Darwinians today, you are confused. I am not.

Eg., as I said before, in the first edition of ‘Origin’, Darwin took the Lamarkian position that characteristics acquired by an organism in its lifetime can be passed on to later generations. In the second & subsequent editions, he made a complete turnabout, & denied that. You can’t have it both ways.

The quite recent discoveries of epigenetics refutes this basic tenet of mature Darwinism. Eg., the descendants of a generation suffering severe malnutrition can/will suffer a much higher incidence of major diseases & bad health. How many generations this can affect is still being studied.

So, in basic principle, Lamarck was right, & Darwin was wrong. And Darwin had the benefit of 50-odd years of thinking & research over Lamarck. Every college textbook teaches how ‘Darwin was right’, & silly-billy froggie Lamarck was wrong. Now we know that is rollocks.

Please do not confuse this simple issue of principle by bringing in extraneous matters like natural selection, group evolution & random DNA changes. No fancy footwork & dustclouds of confusion can get Darwinian fundamentalists off this hook.

Darwin was a brilliant scientist, but so was Lamarck, except one enjoys global centennial celebrations, with brass bands & encomiums from the faithful; the other is ignored – rather like the Scotsman who published the theory of natural selection before Darwin. OGT

many defenders of Darwinism are confused about what they are defending. Unsurprising, since the theory has various interpretations now, some of which are mutually-incompatible - the infallible sign of a theory past its sell-by date.

The majority party is the Neo-darwinists. I call them that, since that is what they call themselves. If you/they confuse that with some other 1895 tendency, that is hardly my problem.

And the Darwin/Mendel mixture is not a 'synthesis', since modern DNA research at major points refutes fundamental Darwinism. Eg., Darwin's a fortiori principle that acquired characteristics are not inherited - disproved by epigenetics. OGT

alas, you ignored my appeal not to quote Wiki on minority opinions: fat chance. In you leap. As a former teacher, I wearily chant my mantra. "In the last resort, read the course material. Never write an answer w/out first reading the question".

Wiki says quite plainly that 'Neo-darwinism' was applied to an earlier set of evolution ideas - now obsolete: no longer used in that sense: clear? Good show!

'Neo-darwinism' now labels the old Darwinian natural selection theory, enhanced by the DNA-type genetics, as pioneered by Crick & Watson in the 1950s.

Influential Neo-darwinians such as Dawkins have applied it retrospectively to the 1850s, to date from Mendel's proto-genetics. Obviously, Mendel et al never used the term themselves. Likewise, Isaac Newton didn't call himself a cosmologist or theoretical physicist, but he was, even tho others have called him the 'last magus'.

All theory about descent is labeled 'evolution theory'. There are many kinds, dating from the ancient Greeks.

You could scarcely be more wrong - "people who use the term “neo-darwinism” are most often the people who dont accept evolution."

You've obviously read nothing by Dawkins. He & co-materialists apply that label to themselves precisely to help disassociate themselves from creationists, ID'ers, & anti-Darwinians in general.

In the first edition of 'Origin', Darwin was a Lamarckian. He took the opposite position in the second edition onwards. The ensuing confusions are not my concern. They should concern Darwinian materialist-enthusiasts. Many of these have been ignorantly taught to worship him as some kind of plaster saint of the eternally infallible. OGT

people now declare it a mix between Medelian Genetics and Darwins Natural Selection, but in reality and academia that is MERELY evolution theory. people who use the term "neo-darwinism" are most often the people who dont accept evolution.

now neo-darwinist was FIRST used in 1895 to refer to a form of evolution that used ONLY natural selection as its method of change, and dismissed Lamarckism

in fact i will quote wiki for you since that is the sight you directed towards

"As part of the disagreement about whether natural selection alone was sufficient to explain speciation, George Romanes coined the term neo-Darwinism to refer to the version of evolution advocated by Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann with its heavy dependence on natural selection.[2] Weismann and Wallace rejected the Lamarckian idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics, something that Darwin had not ruled out.[3] The term was first used in 1895 to explain that evolution occurs solely through natural selection, in other words, without any mechanism involving the inheritance of acquired characteristics resulting from use or disuse.[4] These two scientists' complete rejection of Lamarckism came from Weismann's germ plasm theory."

"From the 1880s to the 1930s the term continued to be applied to the panselectionist school of thought, which argued that natural selection was the main and perhaps sole cause of all evolution.[6] From then until around 1947 the term was used for the panselectionist followers of R. A. Fisher."

"Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory.[7] However, such usage has been described by some as incorrect;[8][1][4] with Ernst Mayr writing in 1984:

"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory."'[9]

Despite this, publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica,[10][11] use this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. This term is also used in the scientific literature, with the academic publishers Blackwell Publishing referring to "neo-Darwinism as practised today",[12] and some figures in the study of evolution like Richard Dawkins[13] and Stephen Jay Gould,[14] using the term in their writings and lectures."

the fact that Dawkins and Gould mention it in lectures or writings doesnt make it the proper term. and blackwell publishing is not an academic journal.

any more red herrings you would like to cover?

if you take it upon yourself to dismiss a position YOU ought to know something about it. I know what degrees i have.

Am off today on a quest, going to locate where I can get Hawking's latest book, "The grand design" a must for my library, will read and study it, then will add my two cents worth on these discussions, which have found very interesting! so far.

Really want to know why Hawking's says the universe came from absolutely nothing!

reading your version of myself is like listening to the Gettysburg Address played on a gramophone underwater. Not mendacity, exactly, but no correspondence to actualities either. Try to keep on-topic, which translates for your benefit (near as matters to you) as "Wurgle-gurgle-gurgle-burble-burp". OGT

But I still think that evasion would not be the right term to describe the course of OGT's discussion, I'm afraid that issues of such nature may not have definitive answers and asking for them I find as an attempt to oversimplify the topics discussed. But, again, I am not speaking in his name, I am merely expressing my perspective of your discourse and the arguments provided by both.

okay neo-darwinian isnt really an academic term. it is called evolution. darwin introduced natural selection we learned later there was gene drift. you can call it neo-darwinism, but its just evolution. and in no way would they say that the intelligence aspect was the goal or the starting point for the brain.

not only are you trying to argue with me from a point i dont accept, but you are also portraying the claims or what you refer to as neo-darwinism, in a false light.

PS: just because Dawkins lectures on something, doesnt make it academic dogma. we never learn "neo-darwinism" we learn the merging of genetics with the theory of natural selection.

@wtc7
your last post didnt make much sense. but i take it you cant back up what you were saying.

I'm not really being defensive, you said, " ‘perceived’ your (OGT) intellectual superiority over your interlocutors" and I was merely inquiring as to what you base that assessment on. Count it up to curiosity on my part.

Perhaps you misread me, I'm not offended, I don't get offended. At all. I'm very tolerant, actually. I hold nothing against you, either. Please, consider me detached from emotion in matters of online discourse. I find it's unsatisfying to squable over petty things.

"What you call evasion of direct answers or “dancing” on his part I would call an open mind which looks broader and further than what is generally considered as established ‘facts’ today"

I appreciate the sentiment but when one is asked a direct question and one does not respond directly to said question, such is called evasion. I like his input as well, if not it'd be illogical for me to converse with him over a span of days.

Perhaps what you percieve as defensive is misread due to projected tone, behaviour you would otherwise categorize as "argumentative". The lack of intonation you get with the written word has emotionally indifferent sentence-construction coming off as defensive or even offensive due to it's "cold" nature.

Then again, neutral is often percieved as hostile as social behaviour practically dictates anything as non-positive to be negative. Social psychology is fun as well.

I am honestly amazed with the reaction to what I said about the discussion from above, which I read with great interest. I don't understand why the fact that I personally think that OGT has a brilliant mind prompted some of you guys to feel offended. I like the way OGT thinks - I can relate to it personally, I like the way he expresses himself. What you call evasion of direct answers or "dancing" on his part I would call an open mind which looks broader and further than what is generally considered as established 'facts' today. I like people who think out of the box, as simple as that. And he does it well in my opinion.

You have really no reason to hold anything against me, since I honestly meant that your arguments were good and that they contributed greatly to the fact that the discussion was so interesting. Don't know why you felt the need to respond in such defensive way..... really.

briefly, brain (matter) & mind (immaterial) are logical categories. They are not established by scientific evidence, altho both logic & science can be adduced to evaluate a mind-brain theory. So, indeed, I ignored ‘spandrels’ as extraneous to our discussion.

“- - you are so ignorant of this entire subject that it is hurting my brain. “

Oooh er! That’s a bit rash, since you ask -

“- - - who is this ‘neo-darwinian’ group you keep bringing up? and what does their position have to do with anything? why do you keep mentioning it?”

Neo-darwinism is currently the ruling evolutionary, materialist theory of the life-sciences, & much else beyond. It’s loudest proponent is Richard Dawkins. Are you a science student? If so, you really have a lot of catching up to do with your homework.

WTC7 obviously has enuf intellectual curiosity & balls to seek out the truth about current affairs. In distinction, human mushrooms accept the manure that is dumped on them by the mass media. OGT

"If you want to put it that way, well, one needs to know how to dance too… And he dances much better than you do :-). And dare I notice that it took you quite some time to come back with some thoughts on the ‘dancing’ you two were ‘not discussing’….. some time back there…. Huh?"

Hahahaha, actually I debate so many people at once that I sometimes forget on which sites I've replied and on which I haven't. I'm also not on TDF every day. There are probably 5+ other discussions on this very site still waiting for a reply from me (just the other day, I came across a relatively old one on the "longevity revolution" page), I think the user doesn't visit TDF anymore so I felt it rather pointless to continue the debate.

OGT certainly know his stuff better than me, that is to say, the man has the booksmarts and has had ample time to work on his thoughts while studying others. I don't really study others that much. I rather constantly re-invent the wheel than to even borrow it once, it's part of my process.

If anything, I think it just comes down to experience in debate and a certain manner in which to present that makes him come off as 'superior', although I'm still really not sure what you're basing that on? Amount of words? Terminology? Amusing joke-insults such as flibbertygibbet? The ability to evade questions while accusing the other party of evading questions? hahaha it doesn't really matter. I'm enjoying myself ^_^

@wtc7, i would love you to show me what you seem to have a problem with. now you are saying that when i copy pasted before i didnt source it. lets say for example you are right (although i do remember this conversation and remember having defended myself and everyone realizing they were wrong) but lets say you are right....does it take away from the points that are made? if so why?

are you concerned with the information or how it is obtained?

and i am not patronizing to anyone at all. if anything im the opposite. you calling me dear is just pathetic. dont do it.

"your are still using & claiming the privileges of (empty) formal logic, while also shedding any responsibility for the concomitant demands of consistency of any content. And as originally, you are still w/out any account for the origins or nature of this logic-intelligence you employ with enuf skill to confuse the unwary."

Oh you and your silly backhanded compliments, I explained the absense of "origin" for my particular way of thinking several comments ago. I could explain how my views combine syllogistic logic with inductive reasoning in an attempt to preserve objectivity in logic derived therefrom, but to be honest, my particular brand of thinking is a web of intricacy and convoluted logical inference, so to point out the basic rules/guidelines you'd need to borrow my frame of reference to even make sense of it. We'll be bogged down in the subtle nuances of my views for eons to come. I don't think you a fool but it's just really, REALLY complicated and I haven't the fortitude to try explaining it.

Humans really only vary in deduction when it comes to such questions anyway, so I don't really know why you're pushing this issue, I haven't asked you about your personal philosophy once. It's irrelevant. Please note that this statement refutes your second paragraph as well.

"That check looks/sounds good superficially, but is your now familiar retreat into empty formalism. There was no substantive claim, rather the original challenge I put to you, here in different format. Is intelligence in the universe, or outside studying it? Or put it another, ultra-simple way; are logic & math a human invention, or objectivities embedded in the universe? You do not answer. You retreat"

You tend to throw a lot of words around without saying much of anything OGT, perhaps a politician looms inside of you? If it looks good, sounds good and leaves you unable to refute it, it's probably good.

Also: I don't answer, I merely wish to inspect the logic leading up to the divide you have created, I have stated this sentiment before. If you're desperately after my 0,02 on the matter; Much like epicurus notes, the intelligence we've formed and are now employing to "understand" ourselves and the universe is inherent to sections of the brain that have came to be over time. Cerebral cortex and such, plethoras of evidence at the very tips of those boney old fingers, go for it! If one is to draw a conclusion on the evidence presented (which to me seems to meager to conclude anything) one could note that intelligence and consiousness are attributed to parts of the brain that developed around the time that intelligence provided an evolutionary advantage. One cannot however, make conclusions concerning the relation of consciousness - intelligence because of the unknown numerous factors. Any conclusion is an exercise in futility and is by extension counter-productive.

I can't be wrong nor right, I don't provide answers, I don't need answers, hell.. I don't even like answers. You clearly didn't think trough on my little "how" and "why" idiosyncratic language-bending. Perhaps your should give that some extra thought, I'm sure it'll answer some questions you have concerning my 'position'.

I've also been saying for a while that absense of an answer is not an answer in itself. If you're discussing things with me, please pay close attention. I don't write "stuff" just for the hell of it.

Lastly, for someone hammering as much on conclusions as you do, you often just bypass/skip/neglect valid points raised. I've been asking you since this thing began to answer

"“Weren’t you asserting that taking DNA “code” into account, implications of such can logically only indicate an intelligent source(!)”

While I understand your hesitance to look deep into that question, you really should approach it directly and objectively. Do it for the sake of consistancy ;)

(patronizing people as in....... you patronizing others? or is my patronizing you different? ok, if you say so :-))

Just for the record, so it doesn't go unanswered, I will easily provide your many copy-paste master pieces prior it was pointed out to you by someone, when you actually started referencing sources. If you would like me to do it, just say it, please. And don't think that this sort of cheap bickering helps your reputation either...

To what I already said about you, I can now add that you possess some modesty as well, huh :)? Well, that's an attitude I generally like. But don't worry, I won't start worshipping you, I just like reading what you have to say :-) (thus far anyway...).

As for the Beloved Agency, hmmmm, if they have me on any of their lists then they must be really bored.... But, this existence comes to an end in some way anyway, so why waste time in thinking about how it may happen... heh

@wtc7, if there is a more concise clear example of what im trying to convey made by people who are much more intelligent and maybe able to put it better than I am, then i would be almost obligated to use it if i truly wanted my position to be heard.

what you are doing is trying to dismiss entire points or arguments by stating they are copy pasted….not to mention when i do copy paste anything i quote and source it and state that i am doing so….

but thanks for the protip DEAR….patronizing people is also rude.

@OGT, i mentioned the emergence of consciousness with the brain as a spandrel…im sure you didnt understand what that meant so ignored it and then b@stardized my point….lol well done.

who is this “neo-darwinian” group you keep bringing up? and what does their position have to do with anything? why do you keep mentioning it?

lol you keep arguing against the neo-darwinians approach to the mind/brain problem and i guess i will just stop putting in my position….since you dont feel the need to address any of it but just misrepresent it.

the brain does not only contain “the software” of mind. your whole entire reaction from your CNS due to external stimuli is reacted upon in the brain.

you are so ignorant of this entire subject that it is hurting my brain.

oh well at least you got the resident conspiracy theorist on your side.

I do know how to do research and I use Wikipedia as a reference point sometimes myself, but I never cite whole chapters from it. If you can't express your thoughts, beliefs and knowledge without copy-pasting stuff that others wrote, and in your case there's loads of copy-pasting me dear, why bother posting?

@ D-K,

If you want to put it that way, well, one needs to know how to dance too... And he dances much better than you do :-). And dare I notice that it took you quite some time to come back with some thoughts on the 'dancing' you two were 'not discussing'..... some time back there.... Huh?

If you know how to research, wikipedia is a great starting point to use. by no means does it lose all credibility just by its nature. actually if what is said on any wiki page is left unsourced i would never use it.

@OGT, my point to you on the brain was clear. the brain MUST evolve before "intelligence" or "consciousness".
you have also created a false dichotomy. it is not either it came before or after, they could have emerged with one another as a spandrel.
The brain does many many many things other than just "intelligence" and "consciousness" and actually looking through evolution we can see the brain evolve its higher functioning parts (which is what i was trying to tell you but you cant seem to understand that.)

good luck with your ridiculous rhetoric. you arent fooling anyone who is actually using their brain here.

your are still using & claiming the privileges of (empty) formal logic, while also shedding any responsibility for the concomitant demands of consistency of any content. And as originally, you are still w/out any account for the origins or nature of this logic-intelligence you employ with enuf skill to confuse the unwary.

Metaphorically, you are writing logic-checks w/out having an account. We can both agree that 1+1 equals 2, etc? Splendid: but I can back that with my account (whatever its merits). You still cannot. Please tell us where the logic form of intelligence you admire originates. Why should you/we trust it? Lacking this backing, you are passing dud checks. As in -

“Axiomatically wrong. Any claim is without validity unless falsified/proven, or has other means of attaining credence. A claim in and of itself is worthless.”

That check looks/sounds good superficially, but is your now familiar retreat into empty formalism. There was no substantive claim, rather the original challenge I put to you, here in different format. Is intelligence in the universe, or outside studying it? Or put it another, ultra-simple way; are logic & math a human invention, or objectivities embedded in the universe? You do not answer. You retreat.

"you can toss your locks, sniff, & make a dignified retreat by that door"

Yes, my line you flatter me by borrowing yourself. Now, tell us where you borrow formal logic from, or you are open to charges of intellectual bankruptcy &/or fraud. OGT

As i do truly enjoy your debates and conversations there is one opinion i have yet to discover. My point is, i'm a religious person muslim to be exact and do not have an issue with science. Why should religion or faith be opposed to science? As a muslim i am compelled to try to understand the world around me. I believe in god and i believe in evolution. Why? Because what i call god is a creature so far beyond my human understanding i do not try to understand him/her/it, but i can try to understand the world around me and find my creator in it. As far as i know evolution is a valid theory and it explains the world as we know it. God is not to be understood in that sense so i do not try to. It might be illogical for the most of you for it has to be one or the other but i disagree.

I do not attend college, I'm also not a purely logic driven creature, obviously, I simply find Nietzsche fun to read.

"If you are not interested in defending your scientistic chums’ views, your idiosyncratic language-bending is irrelevant"

Fair enough, although the "defending of views of my sci chums" mischaracterization is amusing in it's irony and the fact that my explanation is accurate (provided it's met with some mental agility), but the underlying point is not lost on me.

"Formal logic can be an aid, but no substitute for the muscularity & flexibility of ordinary language. Words always derive their part-meanings from context. Ms Logic is pure, & that’s the trouble. She’s impotent, until cozened into doing s/thing compromising with impure reality. There is no perfect cicle, there is no finite value for?"

This is nowhere near close to an answer, please restrict yourself to the issue raised:

"Weren’t you asserting that taking DNA “code” into account, implications of such can logically only indicate an intelligent source(!)"

"Which bit had you in mind?"

Your response. The (arguably) deplorable state you claim mankind to be in is irrelevant as to the futility of introducing an omnipotent being to explain away all the unexplained. It is also innacurate to blame "science" for actions taken by humans, whether those actions be positive or negative.

"As some physicists have mused, it is more valid to claim that the universe studies itself thru us, rather than us studying the universe from some undiscoverd, even unimagined, external point."

Axiomatically wrong. Any claim is without validity unless falsified/proven, or has other means of attaining credence. A claim in and of itself is worthless.

To be honest, I haven't really considered the entertainment value of our ongoing conversation from a third party perspective. Can't really say I care. Having said that, if you'd like to discontinue this little back and forth, "you can toss your locks, sniff, & make a dignified retreat by that door"

If you are not interested in defending your scientistic chums’ views, your idiosyncratic language-bending is irrelevant.

“Meaningless contextualization, substitute for ‘source’ “.

Formal logic can be an aid, but no substitute for the muscularity & flexibility of ordinary language. Words always derive their part-meanings from context. Ms Logic is pure, & that’s the trouble. She’s impotent, until cozened into doing s/thing compromising with impure reality. There is no perfect cicle, there is no finite value for ?.

‘Where the results are productive, the mathematics is in doubt’ (& vice-versa) – Einstein.
‘The worse a philosopher’s logic, the more interesting his conclusions’ – Bertrand Russell.

“Let me ask you this, as it logically follows, you assert (subsequently) that life as we know it follows to intent/plan (determinism)?”

As I suggested, decoding the plans is the task of active science & religion. The searching is stimulated by free will, altho not everyone need have it. So any ‘plan’ allows human free will, & its unfolding is modded by it, in the interplay of chaos & order. Finally, humanity discovers it makes the 'plans', as the plans make it. Divinity, like morality & logic, is a human construct.

As some physicists have mused, it is more valid to claim that the universe studies itself thru us, rather than us studying the universe from some undiscoverd, even unimagined, external point.

“I hope you realize that that is not a remotely valid (or even relevant) counter-argument.”

Which bit had you in mind? The standard refutation of schema of my kind by the positivist-minded (which I inserted to save you the trouble: kinda guy I am), or my response to that?

Reminiscent of Pantheism. Meta-intelligence. Let me ask you this, as it logically follows, you assert (subsequently) that life as we know it follows to intent/plan (determinism)?

As you say Intelligence is cause, and that it manifests through acting upon matter/energy, from whence does then matter derive?

"To save you effort, the usual hostile response to the above is the futility of using some invisible, omnipresent principle to explain away all & anything otherwise inexplicable. “OK Mr know-it-all science man, if you know so much, how you gonna get us out of the trukkin’ mess humanity is in?” Ie., more than science got us in the hole"

I hope you realize that that is not a remotely valid (or even relevant) counter-argument. lol.

D-K,
some science spokespersons claim they are in the ‘how’ business, not the ‘why’. Others tell a different tale. It’s often not easy to separate. As in simple eg., if process A produces effect B in circumstance C, why doesn’t it in (similar) circumstance D? The issue of why math complements science so well is very relevant & important to science & philos.

“All philosophy is systemic”. Has to be, to be self-consistent. If not, we fall into self-contradiction. That can be handled or flirted with, if you wish, but the results can be non-philosophy, or even mania (poor Nietzsche). And even to reveal a possibly meaningless & chaotic universe, we need systematic inquiry. But then the universe is no longer fully ‘meaningless’ or chaotic, is it, since we have introed order by the very act of Mr Order joining Ms Chaos on the cosmic dance floor? “You dance divinely” (true?).

Eg., as ball lightning, eg., yes, perhaps, but never completely independent of a material context/environment. Energy can also transform into information or knowledge. It (mostly) needs a material carrier base, which may be simple paper. You can transform that latent intellectual power into another form of energy, maybe follow the instructions & make a steam engine, or just tear out a page & roll a joint (smoke & flames)?

But knowledge/info can transcend space & time, as when coordinating vastly separated particles. Interestingly, this is what logic/math can do, also, since we can speculate about the farthest reaches of the universe, altho we can never, in principle, ever have experiential evidence.

“Weren’t you asserting that taking DNA “code” into account, implications of such can logically only indicate an intelligent agent? “

As Prigogine et al demonstrated, some kind of purposive intelligence shapes even some ‘low-level’ physical processes.

To save you effort, the usual hostile response to the above is the futility of using some invisible, omnipresent principle to explain away all & anything otherwise inexplicable. My usual hostile further answer is, “OK Mr know-it-all science man, if you know so much, how you gonna get us out of the trukkin’ mess humanity is in?” Ie., more than science got us in the hole, so it will likely take more than the narrow range of scientific thinking to extract us (Zeitgeist?). OGT

I meant to say I look for answers in the sense of "how", as opposed to the common man's "why", I should have clarified. Seeing as the "why" is strictly philosophical at this point, it's irrelevant to me.

"Er, I’m trying to remember a 2-axis diagram from years ago, into which all philosophies fitted"

If you remember where you saw it, or otherwise come across it, shoot me a link, I'd like to have a look at that.

"All philosophy is systemic, even if the thinker is not fully aware of it, or has fully developed his/her ideas"

All established schools of philosophy, yes.
While eclectism might seem to fit, it would also imply my reasoning would follow the basic rules of each school, and one should have no trouble arguing how that would have a hard time standing up logically.

E=MC2 equates mass to energy and produces accurate predictions but omits that energy also moves independantly from mass, effectively as it's own entity. (but we're not dwelling on my assertions here, you shrewd, shrewd man!)

"The idea of an ‘agent’ is another question, possible redundant; IMHO, the nature of a possible ultimate agent is the mystery pursued by both science & religion"

Weren't you asserting that taking DNA "code" into account, implications of such can logically only indicate an intelligent agent? Logically, intelligence needs an agent to be able to manifest, as such your are implicating a creator. Seeing as your argument concerning DNA "code" implying intelligence subsequently implies a creator, the logical fallacy of argumentad ad infinitum pops up. Creator-creating creator.

"To put it another way, if you posit a master architect of all (eg., God), you are probably 75% of the way to assuming the answer to the question, yet not necessarily an inch further in religious or scientific enlightenment."

I thought you did? To my recollection, you even quoted a novelist on the matter.

sorry, I go on too long, but. Prigogine showed many years back that certain energy processes/systems have self-organizing properties (thermodynamics, of which I know zilch). A proportion of energy is bled off for positive-feedback control purposes. This increases as the process approaches its end. In other words, the process struggles to survive by modifying its behavior. Tentative conclusion, energy & information are different forms of s/thing more fundamental.

Plasma (ball lightning) is a fourth form of 'stuff' - energy configured partially as matter.

My second beer, & I approach another dimension. Cue the theremon player. OGT

D-K,
“Whatever seems logical to me, in accordance with the established confines of (scientifically verified) natural laws, I’ll accept as true.”
Bear in mind I’m a science ignoramus, but science ‘laws’ are subject to much contention at present, & varied sub-laws apply to sub-sciences. Apart from that, if we’re not talking of an immovable, self-consistent & self-congratulatory monolith, OK.
“I differ from most people in that I am not looking for answers, much less absolutes, only for logic and logical mechanics.”
Science is the quest for answers, but ‘absolutes’? Depends on which scientist is talking. What most are seeking is patterns, rules, etc. Research-derived best/highest laws are not absolutes, just cover the most cases. They are replaced at intervals by better, more comprehensive ones (Poincare).
I don’t share your trust in formal logic. The paradigm is mathematics, which is a human invention. No-one seems to know why it is so good for research, or why it ‘fits’ the phenomena of the universe so beautifully - & I’m useless at sums. Ever notice how much talking mathematicians need to explain their symbolism? So I prefer linguistic logic, since I am not doing science, simply critiquing its more dubious positions/claims.
“I do not subscribe to established philosophies, if my views coincide with certain terms or definitions, it’s most likely coincidentally.”
Er, I’m trying to remember a 2-axis diagram from years ago, into which all philosophies fitted. All philosophy is systemic, even if the thinker is not fully aware of it, or has fully developed his/her ideas. Eclectic is the usual word for informally grouped ideas from disparate sources: eclecticism then, not philosophy?
“In my opinion, the existance of energy invalidates materialism.”
E=MC2? Doesn’t that contradict your first statement? Atoms & sub-atomics are bits of jiggling energy? Agreed? But if so, then you diverge from the Darwinians & the majority of biology. Ooh, bravo!
“Also in my opinion, intelligence cannot be deemed as such without manifestation. This brings me back to your assertion of an “intelligent universe”. What is/are manifestations of universal intelligence? what is the agent?”
My position is, intelliegence is first & prior, all else follows (big bang). The idea of the formation of life-forms by mere random collisions & repulsions just does not work (Bloom et al). So intelligence is inherent or imminent (whichever) in the universe, manifested teleologically as purposive direction/evolution. The pop notion that the universe, & all in it, just kinda, sorta, happened, is scientistic propaganda for mass consumption.
The idea of an ‘agent’ is another question, possible redundant; IMHO, the nature of a possible ultimate agent is the mystery pursued by both science & religion.
To put it another way, if you posit a master architect of all (eg., God), you are probably 75% of the way to assuming the answer to the question, yet not necessarily an inch further in religious or scientific enlightenment. Conclusion; wisdom is practice, not a final end-state.
“Intelligent agent ad infinitum”. Sorry, I didn’t u/stand you.
That’ll do for now. Another beer & I’ll go all mystical. OGT

OGT: I came to the same conclusion, let us approach it more productively. I'll have to pass on detailing my personal philosophy though, I was hoping you could extrapolate on the brief description I offered, seeing as I deem it rather pointless to go into great detail on it, but it's not important. I guess you could say I'm a cherry-picker.. Whatever seems logical to me, in accordance with the established confines of (scientifically verified) natural laws, I'll accept as true.

I differ from most people in that I am not looking for answers, much less absolutes, only for logic and logical mechanics. I do not subscribe to established philosophies, if my views coincide with certain terms or definitions, it's most likely coincidentally.

In my opinion, the existance of energy invalidates materialism.

Also in my opinion, intelligence cannot be deemed as such without manifestation. This brings me back to your assertion of an "intelligent universe". What is/are manifestations of universal intelligence? what is the agent?

I'd also like to reintroduce the "intelligent agent ad infinitum" argument I made earlier, which you failed to reply to.

@WTC7:

Admirable in persuit? OGT and I haven't actually got down to actually discussing.. up until now it's been a dance-athon apparantly. hahaha. The man's a regualr fred Astair himself..

WTC7,
today you recognize my talents; tomorrow, the world! But nosing ahead in a verbal wrist-wrangle is no mark of higher smarts. Wisdom is a many-splendored & dimensioned thing. In pursuit of which, the Fair Sophia has many furlongs on me.

Epicurus,
please do try to identify the point of debate & try to stick with it. Where the points you make are correct, they are irrelevant. That's why I ignore them. Eg., relative brain size was not the main issue, it was the survival utility of ANY brain, if it evolved before mind, or intelligence, whatever. The challenge for you was to defend your materialist priority.
You can't duel with an opponent clumsily swinging a wooden club if you are using a machine-gun, & no fun in it.

Like many Darwinians & materialists, you have no clear idea of what you believe in. If you are not sufficiently motivated to study, I can't be bothered to instruct you (unless paid handsomely).

Try to refocus on more pressing & serious issues by watching this video featuring American hero, Mike Ruppert. Note his point that the 'rugged individualist' will not survive the threatening holocaust. The cooperative group using mutual aid will. Else, you will be a pathetic & isolated remnant of 19C Yankee-doodle conservatism - a lump of easy meat that refused to adapt, so fed the ones that did.

Or again, you can contribute to the Zeitgeist movement, or similar, & avoid such horrors - an application of prudence & intelligence you will doubtless violently refuse.

I really really enjoyes reading what you wrote just then. I dont know why or if I understand anybodys 'angles' on this blog - let me tell yo this about my brain (!)
tears ago I had a serious car accident - I 'head butted' tha fron passenger window out & was in hospital for 6 weeks. My mother reckons my personality changed, I dont agree.
About 8 Years ago, I tripped and fell headfirst down a flight of stairs and on the way to Hospital I felt (so strongly) that I would die if I closed my eyes
then 4 years ago I fell off a very tall ladder, I was alone, and felt my head had caved in - I managed to dial 999 from my cell phone but I never spoke because I had passed out. The paramedics found me through the GPRS on my cell phone. I was as good as dead, & spent 3 weeks in intensive care.
im seeing a pschychiatrist but I dont know why.
all I know is I feel different, sometimes better than before! but I just KNOW I am not the same
why is this?
please dont say anything negative, Id rather you said nothing. negative makes me so upset.
why is this?

Absolutely, I agree on all counts! Including, your characterization of OGT.

Over and above all of that, he is cozying up to a damaged girl in hopes of getting some glimpse of her... semi-clothed...

Creepy!

I have always said, anatomy of the brain is no indication of intelligence. Birds, just for one example, that you mentioned, are far wiser and smarter than OGT, and their brains are the sizes of peanuts!

(The Raven Test, do you know of it? The Puzzle solving test? Amazing!)

Excellent! It was a pleasure to read your arguments, real feast actually. I 'observed' the discussion above and 'perceived' your intellectual superiority over your interlocutors (and some, like D-K, were really admirable in their pursuit). Congrats on my part!

don't let it bother you. I've been round the bend purt near all my life. Fact is, only us nutters can u/stand the world, becoz it's one big madhouse. The USA is going bankrupt from paying for two ruinous wars, so it is going to invade Iran & start another one. Wibblw, wibble. OGT

Thank you for saying that OGT! - I really am grateful. and yes my life is a mess right now and this TDF is what is keeping my mind focussed and strong, cos lord knows I am in the fight of my life right now!
added to this, is the fact that I am a lunatic!
NO! - I really am! - it comes and goes....full moons give me no relief whatsoever.
but your words do.
thank you, Sade the Celt x

"The universe is conscious I say! can’t seem to shake my hippie bent. What do you think Sadie, conscious or no?"

Agreed, the universe is intelligent. That is why we can't just live 'in balance with (dumb) Nature'. We must study & follow the mysteries of the Fair Sophia (wisdom) - which is what the best of science & religion do. OGT

“I love Star-Trek, but it is a fantasy world, I live in the REAL world…”

You dear, old-fashioned thing. Like most people, you live in a past called ‘common sense’. The present day is an assemblage of things that your great-grandfather would have called ‘fantasy world’, if he had that much imagination or foresight.

“The furture may well be Star Trek-land where money is not necessary, Star-Trek-boy, but what I see happening is another financial crash so you better be squirreling your money away as best you can!”

True, but irrelevant. Money is dying. I told my rich chums to buy gold about 5 years back, since currency was clearly in decline, & a crash developing. Like you, they thought I was talking Star Trek. Now they think me a financial wizard. Alas, no; it was idiot-obvious, if you study the past, but are not blinkered by it.

When the volume of money increases, & it’s circulation velocity rises, a magical thing happens. First gradually, then more quickly, capitals de-materializes, then disappear. That’s what you are witnessing now (it’s happened before, just now IT makes the situation more acute). Paper/electronic fortunes go in a puff of evaporated ‘confidence’. Such insights are not available to crude materialists, nor to most economists raised on ‘scientific methods’ – ie., obsolete thinking fossilized into rigid methodology.

Zeitgeist is just a possible way forward. The problem for bewiskered conservatives like yourself is that anything other than the present is ‘plumb impossible’. But then the present is always moving into the future, a future you find unimaginable. This leaves you floundering like a fish on a sandbank as the tide moves out - both present & future are non-viable. OGT

"Which is why I stated that I’m not a materialist.
Materialism is an absolutist position, and again; “I shy away from absolutes”, really I’ve said this a couple times now."

Materialism is no more 'absolute' than any kind of monism. But in materialist form, it does land you with certain dubious positions & contradictions, like the tensions between prevailing dualism & materialism in science.

Of course, if you cleave to pluralism, or 'don't know', you should say so. It's only polite. Since you come on sassy against others' positions & arguments, don't be shy, show us yours.

But, true & not true are absolute positions; so also 1=1 & not 2. If you reject these simple, binary categories of logic, no rational discussion can take place.

You see, you thereby deny the very possibility that what must be true for you, must be true for me, or anyone else. In which case, what you end up with is, "I can think what I like". Your freedom indeed, but terribly unscientific, & rather a bucket of water on intelligent exchanges, since you deny the very prospect of agreement. OGT

Me thinks you have got @Charles B: a wee bit "discombobulated" he keeps asking me and others if anyone has seen you lately, keeps thinking that you may be in Korea, since he has not seen you for a few days, (LMAO)

The universe is conscious I say! can't seem to shake my hippie bent.
What do you think Sadie, conscious or no?

Is everything because of the "observer effect"?? some top theoretical physicist's seem to think so!

Trying to get something going here, nobody is giving anything akin to answers or even suppositions! Go team go!

Never mind the feet, please set out your conundrum, if it even applies to me, that is. Like I said before, your comments lack direction and you seem to end up drawing 2 arbitrary lines in the sand. Epicurus noted this as well, perhaps you could be a bit more clear in detailing the thought process leading up to any divide you have concocted.

Hello!
I cannot contribute anything at all to this blog, and yet I really enjoy reading the rampant discourse, because it is teaching me so much about what I am trying to learn, and that's grammar, linguistics/syntax. I am grateful to you all. I get 'pictures' in my mind as to who is who - (but thats probably because Im going a bit 'off kilter' (I had to cancel my last appointment with my pschychiatrist as in co-incided with a Court hearing, oh well onwards and upwards!

brain evolved first. it is the necessary anatomy for the mind to exist. once again, show me an example of mind without it. you are asserting all kinds of nonsense for no reason.

you are not a philosopher insofar as you are a sophist. this is silly. you are not giving anything forward just trying to argue from a position of ignorance.

lets take your example of the cheese burger. you can have a thought of a cheese burger and it be independent of a physical cheese burger but the thought is fully dependent on reactions in your brain. until you can provide me an example otherwise i have to apply Occam's razor. i have no reason to assume the mind is dependent from the brain other than old arguments about soul and other metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. arguments which themselves rest on ignorance and superstition.

one wouldnt say the functions of a computer are independant of the computer because the code was in 1's and 0's and not the types of images we get on the screen....its just....silly.

Following your threads, would like to put my answer in, neither brain or mind evolved first, energy evolved first! which than by consciousness evolved mind to form the brain, which is still evolving, (I hope) getting smarter? maybe? EH?
Of course that is hippie stuff, but so what. Like... "the conscious universe, the observer effect"! No??

thanks to New Wonder Philosophy, I have removed all the irrelevancies & extraneous grit from you posts & reduced them to their simplest state. Still you show little understanding or gratitude; sigh.

Mind is impossible (as far as we know) w/out a material base. M&M are inter-dependent. That does not justify our saying they are the same or equivalent.

My immaterial thoughts of cheeseburgers are similarly dependent on the existence of real c/burgers. Not the same tho, are they?

Even if you could open up my bald nut & see the neurons firing, those material brain functions would not even be the concept of c/burgers.

Of course, if you were a really brilliant scientist, you might prove how brain functions produced the mental impression, but still the two would not be the same. Repeatedly asserting the opposite is pointless.

D-K,
fear not; a 'good trouncing' rarely comes from exchanges like this. That's more a fantasy of more engaged polemicists.

By the way, it just clicked. I was not waxing political with the word 'conservative'. That applied to traditionl thinkers, resistant to novelty - no political significance.

I can make no sense of your description of your outlook. IMHO, 'critical free-thinker' is neither a necessary nor sufficient qualification of the materialist position. Unless you wish to explain, I suspect one or other of us is off the topic.

"if you are not a materialist, you can always deny it. What’s the difficulty? You are then free to explain what kind of ontology you favor"

I'm a critical free-thinker, not a materialist. I have told you before I shy away from absolutes. My position is always the same, perhaps the best description for it is 'informed agnostic'. I favour logical mechanics over answer, but I'm no scientist.

"Telling sentence; you think prevarication is evidence of wisdom?"

I do not.

"My tenacity is the response to your inability or refusal to solve a pretty basic, central conundrum"

if you are not a materialist, you can always deny it. What’s the difficulty? You are then free to explain what kind of ontology you favor.

“Your tenacity is not becoming, perhaps you think me a fool ready for exposure?”

Telling sentence; you think prevarication is evidence of wisdom? My tenacity is the response to your inability or refusal to solve a pretty basic, central conundrum. You are not a fool, but withdrawals are not useful, since by such tactics, discussions like this do not ‘move on’.

On the other hand, maybe you've gone as far as you dare, w/out jeopardizing your macro, scientistic belief system? You tell us.

“When discussing such matters, it is considered wise to leave politics at the door.”

Your view of wisdom is different from mine. If they were the same, what would we have to talk about? You can toss your locks, sniff, & make a dignified retreat by that door. I’d be sorry. This chat is becoming interesting, & the nearest thing I get to fun at my old age. OGT

you've swallowed the double-speak of current science education, I'm afraid. Physical brain processes are not mental processes. As in computing, hardware is not the same as software.

Unless your are a Watsonian behaviorist? The behaviorists used to ignore everything except stimulus-response patterns. Ie., it was a way of doing psychology that denied the existence of psychological processes, ot thrust them aside as irrelevant

As simply as I can spell it out; mind & matter, or life -forms & matter, are logical categories. They are not defined by research data. Rather, data is dependeent on such categories to define it.

If you dump humble logic, you jettison descriptive coherence. You talk in paradoxes & parables. You may indeed get very interesting results, but these are always suspect.

Eg., Christiansen & Chater proposed that brain & language/intelligence evolved together, or brain development was stimulated by behavioral demands. This seemed reasonable to me, but was rejected by the hard-materialists, since it was heresy: it challenged the priority of brain as matter. Yet how the heavy brain would develop before any social/behavioral needs is a mystery.

The problem remains; brain before language/intelliegence, or vice-versa? OGT

"I do understand ‘materialism’, you do not. You can prove otherwise by solving the problems I set you. OGT"

Amusing. First you toss me into a restrictive catagory, after which you challenge me to prove I indeed belong to said catagory, without me ever having agreed to your assumption.

Your tenacity is not becoming, perhaps you think me a fool ready for exposure? You jest, sir. As I have claimed before, I do not partake in challenges tainted with personal agendas. I will discuss matters of science, philo and esoterica with you, but I'd ask you to refrain from unfounded guestimates concerning the limitations of my knowledge as a means to provoke me into senseless contests.

When discussing such matters, it is considered wise to leave politics at the door.

your question OGT AGAIN, presupposed that there is a duality. what is this "immaterial mind" you speak of? any evidence for it? any falsifiable tests? you are adhering to a VERY old idea that has been shown silly by neurology.

your comment, "brain research = mind research only for materialist hard-noses." is very disingenuous. i hope you dont pretend to know enough about psychology or neurology to say this.

how would you respond to these critics:

"If consciousness (the mind) can exist independently of physical reality (the brain), one must explain how physical memories are created concerning consciousness. Dualism must therefore explain how consciousness affects physical reality."

"This argument has been formulated by Paul Churchland, among others. The point is simply that when the brain undergoes some kind of damage (caused by automobile accidents, drug abuse or pathological diseases), it is always the case that the mental substance and/or properties of the person are significantly compromised. If the mind were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?"

"since human beings (both phylogenetically and ontogenetically) begin their existence as entirely physical or material entities and since nothing outside of the domain of the physical is added later on in the course of development, then we must necessarily end up being fully developed material beings. Phylogenetically, the human species evolved, as did all other species, from a single cell made up of matter. Since all the events that later occurred which ended up in the formation of our species can be explained through the processes of random mutation and natural selection, the difficulty for the dualist is to explain where and why there could have intervened some non-material, non-physical event in this process of natural evolution."

"The dualist is always faced with the question of why anyone should find it necessary to believe in the existence of two, ontologically distinct, entities (mind and brain), when it seems possible and would make for a simpler thesis to test against scientific evidence, to explain the same events and properties in terms of one. It is a heuristic principle in science and philosophy not to assume the existence of more entities than is necessary for clear explanation and prediction"

the bottom line is, experiment after experiment shows the mind to be a function of the brain. and these functions can be altered imploying experimental technique....you know, independent variable, dependent variable, constant, constraint, etc.

your drift would be clearer if you gave concrete examples, as with Hegel & me, a common shortcoming.

Epicurus seems to be enstrangled in the toils of materialist-positivism. Intelligence is an abstract noun, so referring to the immaterial. Examples of intelligence can be more substantial. And, brain research = mind research only for materialist hard-noses.

I do understand 'materialism', you do not. You can prove otherwise by solving the problems I set you. OGT

the monist/dualist problems remains for science becoz it is insoluble. That is why you swerve aside from it, as you accuse me of dodging the issue. Cool!

Naked ape-ists, as materialists, have this associated problem. What evolved first, the material human brain, or the immaterial mind? I wait your answer with interest. What are they teaching in colleges these days? OGT

Languages and linguistics are where I am both strong and weak.
I am becoming more and more disallusioned with the limitations of the English language as opposed to - say Hindu. there is no 'J' in my native tongue - and yet I seem to cope much better, I use the word 'hiraeth' - but I just cannot find an english word to match its depth! 80.000 words in english just isnt enough for some descriptions, yet is way too much for me to understand in science! alas

Yes E.L thats the sort of stuff that fascinates me - I know its stupid easy stuff to the likes of others - but I got to start somewhere!
I struggle with language in translation, I am getting better much better since i joined TDF - im not stupid but I feel stupid, but Socrates must have been young once (and Plato) -
its
"a priori of forms of thought" (Thomas Cant)

what a blog! I had a 'sneaky little laugh' - and then I had my mind stretched - like I love - yes Im thinking. I remember something like this when I did my English grammar GCSE! - there was something akin to what youve written - Id forgotten it - and Ive no books here so I will enjoy reading this and writing it down to remember
thank you E.L. - bare with me!

That was impressive dodging and not replying to anything that was said other than admitting that primates do war, but your line has now been pushed back to they dont have the technology we have. then you try to say we just want to see humans as barely modified apes. that is a straw man if i have ever seen one.

just more of the same lack of understand of science.

And my anger was with the way you acted as though the monism/dualism issue has been solved and used it as a basis for your argument and a way to dismiss the other sides. it was silly.

(i) His expression on Friday was full of meaning
(ii) She meant well
(iii) There is much meaningless formality in everyday life
(iv) These clouds mean rain
(v) Your friendship means much to me
(vi) The superstitious ascribe meaning to the purest accident
(vii) The incident requires fresh meaning
(viii) These two words have the same meaning

If the reader considers what other words OR expressions are substitutable for the words 'mean' and 'meaning' in the above sentences. The multiple senses of the use of the words will become apparent...

"DK if morality requires all people to be thinking the same way then there is no morality"

I didn't imply this, but I guess it is sort of my fault that you'd read it as such. I tend to take a lot of shortcuts in an attempt to be concise and to countereffect my tendencies to get carried away with tangents and causal implications.

I keep looking over the fact that different frames of reference makes different people read the same statements differently. I sometimes have trouble finding balance between too little and too much explanation.

I will say that some things as subjective-based as morality are hard to universally define, mostly because it's so context sensative. I'll just re-evaluate my thoughts myself, no biggie.

@OGT:

I too see core similarities existing between my view and V positivism, although I stray from it's definitions when it comes to intent and value. So human-like, an a basic kind of way.. whever it comes to anything subjectively based, we diversify and extrapolate only to diversify further. 'Intellectual selection'.. how entertaining.

Socrates was certainly a Great Master. Also agree with majority opinion: "All Western philosophy is footnotes to Plato" - Plato was Socrates' student. The greatness of these, & the pre-Socratics, IMHO, is the breadth of their minds. They spanned both east & west. I am depressed by contemporary 'thinkers'. So many seem content to live within the prison walls of eurocentric ideas, very much chained to contemporary time & place. If the past is not your dear, poor old friend, the present is an alien stranger. If you cannot dream of a better future, that future will not be. But I'm probably just drunk again. OGT

@ OGT
I thank you for your patience!...I think I told you that I have a degree (just a BA) in Philosophy, and an MA in Religion. but i am not religious, for if I was then I would have studied Theology.
I adore Socrates - and I'll hazard a guess he would have liked me too!
(but look what happened to Socrates!)
thsnk you OGT I shall plod on - picking it up as I go,

philosophy not terribly fashionable these days, but dashed useful, as its methods are so widely applicable. Perversely, altho philos is at root very simple, the simplicity is often the greatest difficulty. Eg., that great brain Wittgenstein asked, "What is the meaning of the word 'meaning'. Yeah, intense mental focus on little nothings like that makes your eyes cross. So don't be daunted you don't u/stand the simple. Still, wonder philos cuts 99% of all known ****". OGT

calm down & stick to statements. I'm ashamed that I'm rather good at provoking posters, & that resulting replies are often hasty & ill-considered. It's a polemical trick. Fair warning?

All human behavior has some dim, evol origin in the animal world. It is fallacious, but, to claim that both are the same. If the same, no evolution; if different, the interesting & challenging question is why they are so very different.

Agreed, baboons & chimps are capable of waging group 'war', but nothing like the systematic & deadly way it is done by 'sapiens'. That is akin to detecting the advanced skills of jet travel in ape bipedalism, since both are A to B affairs.

I put it to you that you are committed to seeing humans as barely-modified apes. Materialists are lost w/out the naked ape formulation, since from thence they can go to speculate about the origins of human intelligence & language in the banging of two rocks together. The paleos are never more exultant than when finding two rocks at the end of a trail. And goodness, trails being what they are, how often they are successful.

Instead of getting angry about my exposure of the impossibility of reconciling dualism & monism, why not stick around & find out more? Your post seems to say, a/ It's all wrong. b/ You don't understand it. c/ You don't like it.

Richard Dawkins & his monstrous regiment of materialist biologists are huffing & puffing; less becoz of their anger with religion, more becoz they are running about a century behind physics. They sense they will never catch up. Yet they will never drop their heavy knapsacks full of rocks. OGT

you are ABSOLUTELY wrong, and it bothers me a lot because you say it as if you know for a fact you are right.

organized warfare is shown in chimpanzees and baboons. if you want a beneficial adaptation that would have resulted in that type of behaviour just look to xenophobia.

you are using materialist here in a flawed way. this is the same problem we had with another christian. you should really actually study philosophy rather than just religion.

what logical dualism must be made monist? what are you talking about here? are you acting as if you have solved the mind/brain issue? so far neurology would take the monist position.

morality, behaviour and intelligence are all a form of matter. behaviour is reactions to external stimuli in the form of transmissions, intelligence is part of our cerebral cortex and frontal lobe, morality is a result of our need to survive more comfortably which is amplified with the evolution of mirror neurons.

The majority approach, which you & Randy seem to favor, is the materialist one, which dates back to Victorian scientific positivism. That kind of positivism was discarded, in deed, if not word, by physics about a century ago (New Physics).

The biology rearguard fights doggedly on. It typically sees morality as having survival value, but stumbles over the many egs of human non-survival behavior. The most spectacular eg is organized warfare.

The principal input to survival argument is, of course, Darwinism, which is a materialist theory. The trouble here, as proved by our earlier discussion, is the inevitable, insoluble paradoxes thrown up.

Like, in examining homo sapiens, how to reduce a logical dualism into a (materialist) monism - a hiding for nothing: plumb impossible! More specifically, how to relate or reduce immaterial morality, behavior, or intelligence, to stuff/matter terms.

This does not & cannot work, as surely as 1=1 & not 2. You cannot derive a logical dualism from a monist basis. Eg., sooner or later the Darwinian, armed with his two entry categories of life & matter, finds him/herself talking singular, monist nonsense. Hence their rather dishonest attempts to divert their annoyance onto the religious.

Anyhow, this is possibly off-topic & of no interest to anyone else. OGT

DK if morality requires all people to be thinking the same way then there is no morality

i dont understand what you are trying to say. i think you are trying to assign a definition to MORALITY that doesnt exist. maybe im very confused in what you are saying.

PS My school has started again recently so its really hard to keep track of what video i have been commenting on. i usually depend on the recently commented list. i dont like to be notified as i already get lots of emails throughout the day. sorry if i dont respond sometimes.

The theory of evolution matches with the theory of 'Dasavatar of Vishnu'to a great extent,and the Big bang theory is just a replica of what mentioned in 'Hindu Cosmology'.So there is no conflict between religion and Darwin.

again - I think I understand - and more excitingly I agree insomuch as I know.

Forgive me for using 'layman' terms, (but thank you for stretching my mind!)
I happen to think that an entirely new medium of communication is evolving via this Internet and I am experiencing it firsthand. I am seeing and partaking in discussions via 'blogs' which I would never have before thought possible (or accessible) and this has got to be a step forward for homo-sapiens aka mankind?
It does, however cause a lot of ambitguity - this can have a very negative effect - but I am still finding this out.
Thank you for Listening OGT! Sade x

could you kindly provide an address for the previous discussion you mentioned? I can’t seem to locate it. I don’t want to prejudge your ideas.

However, your brief comment does seem to indicate the majority, materialist line of analysis – back thru homo habilis/erectus, to animal world, & then material causes, conditions, etc?

In distinction, I propose a novel road, not ‘already traveled’, the idealist path that posits no priority ontological belief. My route makes a distinction (as said) between mere animal behavior & human morality. The latter is an evolutionary advance, a product of the more advanced communications skill of language. So this route begins with homo sapiens sapiens (the unique language-carrying animal), for a variety of attractive reasons.

In this approach, communications techniques provide a datum for explanation, & offers a broader perspective, since DNA is a matter of info transmission.

Consider, as I hinted, laws & the city-states they enabled were impossible w/out laws, which demand writing. In the same vein, the printing press, then the computer networks, have formed our modern cultures, & likely also shape our ‘human natures’ – all effects of the speed & range of info flows (I claim).

Maybe others have travelled before me here. If so, I would be very happy to know about them.

“I hate to repeat myself. Sometimes I have so many debates going, I tend to lose track of some ^_^”

I have the same trouble! We are info-processing & exchanging animals. There is necessarily a lag between the efficiency of the medium, & its capacity to generate new ‘messages’. OGT

So we meet again, sir. The direction you're taking the debate on morality in is a road already traveled, might I direct you to the page "Through the wormhole; is there a creator?" A good number of people tossed in their 2 cents, and both Epicurus and I touched on morality within the animal kingdom, explaining how it's not limited to humans. I believe we also touched on morality in homo erectus/habilis. It's quite interesting actually, have a look.. it starts at about a third of the page and pretty much goes on for another third.

I hate to repeat myself. Sometimes I have so many debates going, I tend to lose track of some ^_^

i enjoyed reading that, I didn't understand all of it, but I understood enough to 'crack it open' so to speak. I will think about what you have said, and try and put it into the context of my life. thank you ogt

trying to keep on-topic! We have no strong evidence that humanity emerged as anything other than a social animal. Therefore, it is misleading to see morality, or its possible precursors, as kinds of imposed ‘add ons’, in inevitable tension with animal drives. The tensions come from elsewhere.

Morality is a peculiarly human development. Group animals have instinct-based socializing rules (signal-response arrangements). Morality is a more structured & complex set, which resulted from humankind’s unique skill of language. This communication leap enabled morality, just as later laws (or even religion – more structured morality) were impossible w/out the further comms development of writing (& graphics).

It’s useful to consider our species as information-processing animals. And human morality is not a mere bundle of binary opposites – good/bad; selfish/altruistic; individualism/cooperation; it’s more complicated than that. What has alowed humanity to subordinate all other animals is our unique & amazing skill in using balanced combinations of aggression & cooperation, etc.

At some simpler, early stage, with knives & spears, our cooperating groups became a single formidable animal, armed at all points with super-teeth. Probably also the bag for gathering food became central, since single foragers were vulnerable to animal attack. So the skills in group gathering & social dividing grew.

This raised fundamental problems that have been with us ever since, in various forms. Just one is, how to accommodate the more aggressive &/or super-gifted individual into the social? To give just two illustrations of derived, contradictory tendencies -

1/ Few humans are as closely bonded as the ‘band of brothers’. They go out to kill other ‘brothers’ - the dirty dogs who are ‘not like us’. The enemy are alien ‘others’! We have organized warfare, animals do not.

2/ Today, the super-successful rich person, however big his/her lawn or estate, never lives fully separate from the inferior ‘others’. S/he is always still connected to the mother society. People in solitary confinement long enuf go insane.

We are dependent on the social, & we must communicate, or cease to be human. So the rules of morality or law only appear to constrain us. Actually, they define us, even as we kick like fractious children against the rules. The latter is also very human!

Both the human individual & the human society are volatile, unstable, dynamic compromises. There is no perfect stasis or end-state. The rules are for the guidance of the wise, & blind obedience by the rest. OGT

You may have missed my reply to your response on my assertion, I'll c/p it for your convenience.

"I think you may have misread my assertion. Cooperation is not necassarily based on a moral system, social behaviour is instinctive to humans, as such, cooperation is the default, not a sign of moral conviction. This is key to my assertion. Cooperation does not necessitate a single mindset, large scale behavioural manipulation however, requires all the noses to point in the same direction, with the same motivation (also crucial).

Morality implies a unified code of conduct, and with unification comes a social structure with purpose. Purpose in turn creates docility, which is the primary surpressor of hormonally influenced behaviour, i.e our animalistic side, which is the primary opponent to a stable social structure.

From whence does purpose derive? Religion. Much like our modern times, surviving and co-existing is not enough “purpose” to surpress hormonal behaviour, as such purpose is introduced in the form of organized religion. This is why, in our other discussion on morality, I dubbed religion the peacekeeper of the ignorant masses.

Religion became the stubborn entity it is through indoctrination, nothing else is needed for a concept to flourish over time. Indoctrination and dedication. People cling to purpose, because they are lost without it. You cannot logically relieve yourself of purpose, without trivializing life which you vowed to deem sacred. It’s a web of logic, created by indoctrination.

Obviously this is all original material, which I haven’t actually shared with anyone, so I’m very open to feedback"

@Sadie: I have no interest in making this a personal matter, I don't get as emotionally involved like you seem to. Frankly, I don't get emotionally involved at all, I find it is unwise to do so.

The fact that I'm 22 years old disqualifies me for the monniker "boy", any male human post-adolescense is considered a man in virtually every culture (save 2 that I know of). Also, I wasn't nitpicking on your little grammar related faux pas, I was illustrating that when you call someone on such matters, you had better make sure you don't jump into the pitfall yourself mere moments later. I added the wink to take the sting out, ineffectively, apparantly.

I also don't see how I'm showing off, I am merely discussing subjects with like-minded individuals. I also never made the assumption that you are not anywhere near my level, intellectually speaking. You should read more carefully, I haven't, nor do I have any intention, to personally insult you.

I'm not middle-aged, I don't see any reason for you to assume I'm lying about my age, I clearly have no reason to do so. I have also stated multiple times that I'm dutch on this site, if you feel this is a matter of importance to you, feel free to ask Vlatko to confirm the location of my IP.

"I may not be the brightest when it comes to science – but Ive admitted that on countless occasions. So cut me a bit of slack!"

As far as I know, we haven't discussed science, merely your idea of correct protocol concerning online discourse. The fact that you blatantly accuse me of lying, without having any reason to do so, would make Marcus turn in his grave. I'd also like to point out that any "lies" I've uttered would be instantly accessible on this site, eliminating the need for a good "momerem"

This little back and forth we shared tells me it would be pointless to take on your challenge, I see no reason to debate someone who is being utterly illogical.

Ive just thought of a great idea DK.....
Because you are such a clever person...can I offer you a challenge please?
Pick a documentary - ANY documentary (as long as its not science)
we can both watch it - and meet in the blog, does that sound right?
any documentary will do.....just not science - deal?
bring it on bro!
Balls in your court!
'componere lites' - ??

I deduced that you tell me yr a bit of a charmer? - lovable rougue? I think you then asked me what category I fall into? I had to stretch my brain on this Achems its been years and years since I sat in a Latin class, I am only familiar with odd little phrases and anecdotes.
Classic case of 'use it or lose it' undoubtedly
my email is whosesadie at g mail dot com
email me! and I will send you a same pics as i sent to ez - i took them with my phone, so they genuine.
Then, and only then will you be able to see that you are chatting up a 25 stone bricklayer from Dumfries!
hahahahahaha! Achems you make me laugh so much! thank you for yr kindness x

ok first and foremost, IF you are 22, and you are addressing me - even in a blog, its extremely patronising to call me 'woman' (its almost 'cave-like' - why dont you just grab me by my hair and drag me around (and 'club' me once on a while!)
admittedly, yes, I am possibly nit-picking - but thats because a 'boy' with your level of education, should know better!
....oh and whose 'nit-picking' when you admonish me for the way I spelt you're? - come on 'laddy' - everybody knows that the apostrophe is a substitute for the missing letter (DUH!)
forgive me I was not paying attention I am sorry.
and yes you are right DK - I am NOT intellectually anywhere NEAR your standard! (or that of Randy, OGT, Achems, Epicurios ....even Charles B)
but thats ok with me because I came here to LEARN not show-off.
I think you are a middle-aged Narcissist - possibly from Holland?
welcome to my world - I may not be the brightest when it comes to science - but Ive admitted that on countless occasions. So cut me a bit of slack! .....meet me on MY territory and I will thrash your wrinkled back side.
sincerely. Sadie

Randy,
I gave up self-employment becoz I was working harder than for any i@#$% who would employ me. But you are undoubtedly correct that employer power gives satiisfaction. Generally, the employee is less happy, since s/he has less control over his/her life (much data).

My happiest times come/came when work stop/ped. Work is a four-letter word. Like most people, my real life began as soon as I clocked off. But of course, if you like/love what you are paid to do, it is not really work, it is combined work-pleasure (happy ho@#$%&). Remember, bankers are not in it just for the money. They also enjoy s@#$%&*^ people.

Work & jobs are obsolete hangovers from the days of industrial capitalism. Productive work is done by machines today. Bio-power has surrendered to silicon-based intelligence. So f--k work, & f--k capitalsm, f- - k the Protestant work ethic, & f--k the social status endowed by employment or career. Guess that makes me a redneck hillbilly? OGT

I have written some, yes. I know how to present a formal argument, but I also know that a comment section on a blog does not call for the standards of formality one would apply to a dissertation.

If you are referring to the argument I made to epicurus, I'll let you know that we've discussed matters before, as such we can forego standards of formality. I'll usually forego form to get down to brass tacks on any online format anyway. Efficiency trumps form, especially on a blog.

--

"Significantly younger" does not refer to a universal set period of time, be it days or years. Significantly younger relates the number I'm referring to, to the total amount of years I have lived. I deem an age difference of 15 years in relation to a total of 22 significant, as such that the results of those tests do not pertain to the person I am now, they partain to the person I was when I was 7.

I am not "only" 22, the word "only" in this case refers to the amount of years you have lived, or less likely, to the average amount of years any male human lives. (I am male, btw)

You seem to get hung up on insignificant data a lot, perhaps you have too little to add to the content of ongoing discussions, which forces you to nitpick on form. I'd ask you to refrain from doing so, it seems a rather fruitless endeavor as well as that it makes you seem like you don't have anything to add on an intellectual level.

(from Cardiff Library)
DK have you ever written a dissertation or a thesus? Im only asking because your level of education suggests that you have.
and if you have - then you should know how to properly present a formal argument. thats what Im trying to say.
sorry if i worded it wrong, I think I worded it wrongly,sorry

A yes, indeed different countries have different standards. For instance, the american SAT's are quite different from the Dutch SITO-test. This is mostly because the curriculum is susceptible to cultural differences. For instance, in my country, A standard curriculum on all levels of education includes a set of different languages. Dutch, English, German, French are mandatory, latin or greek on top of that for higher level classes. As such, gradation differs, intelligence catagorization differs, and ultimately, academic standards differ.

I'm not sure whether I qualify as a genius, although I have done various tests; several personality tests, IQ tests, extensive psychological tests, various uncertified tests of intellectual capacity and some pertaining to "intelligence related personality disfunctions", which upset my mom a bit. lol.

These were all administered when I was significantly younger, although I have taken some online IQ tests about a year or so ago. The results on those tests were a bit too varied to really pinpoint an IQ, although I can quite safely assume I'm above average.

achems! (slap)!!
truth is I only understand a bit! but I think I can work it out, and I will - oh yes I will enjoy this Achems!
today I have to prepare for a huge Court case @ High Court - sadly I must dash to Cardiff Library to get some info - my books are all in storage ( INCLUDING MY LATIN!)
and Achems - you will never force me to use google ad lib - never!!! that, to me, is the sign of desperate EGO pumping - google = steroids??

@Sadie: You keep accusing me of speaking in the 3rd person, and now you accuse me of actually talking to myself? For the love of grapes woman, quote the section where according to you I typed in 3rd or 2nd person, or let it go.

@Randy: Oh I very much agree with the fact that altruism does not exist, I have been claiming the very same thing for years.

I've been called a pessimist for it, people have told me to "not look at it that way" but it can't be helped. I'm a realist, I see things as they are, not as what I'd like them to be. Perhaps this is my curse, my burden.

I'm fine with it though. Much like with other subjects, I'm more comfortable with cold uncaring truth, than cuddly, comforting delusions.

like many, you see yourself as some kind of radical individualist, yet your ideas betray you. Alas, if you examine them, you will find they are just the morbid products of post-industrial, mass culture.

You individualism is what others more accurately call alienation. Our authoritarian, right-wing, top-down, capitalist culture encourages everyone to cut ties to others, becoz the guys at the top find it easier to handle the particulate biomass, rather than the biomass enlarged into a powerful political movement.

You have the freedom to kick & scream your unfocussed objections, precisely becoz you are powerless. The big boys & girls couldn't care less what one single blob of protein does.

A good example is the teenager who flies a 'rebel' flag of the South on his jalopy. He has no idea it was the symbol of a parasitic, aristocratic class of conservative slave-owners, who would not wipe their riding boots on the likes of his 'white trash.' The teenage 'rebel' is actually a junior conservative, a dupe, a jackass. Yeeeeeehaw!!!

Also materialism & atheism: they were radical about 150 years back. Now they have been absorbed into the conservative mainstream, like those other dead radicalisms, Darwinism & Marxism.

Majority American ideology has also absorbed & suborned Christianity. It is now just the rich & redneck conservatives on their knees, prostrate before the God of Wall Street America, Belial, or Mammon.

As in ancient Carthage, Belial craves young flesh. That's why the young are sent to Afghan & Iraq. The 'patriotic' Chjristians bow their heads as the flag-draped corpses return. They have not a glimmer that they are heretics, revering a pagan deity, not Christ.

By all means, you have every right to hate religion. All I'm saying is, as an uncomprehending, blind enthusiast for materialism (whatever), you will still end up with your mind in someone else's pocket, not a free individual. Minds are units of ideological capital. In a materialist culture, they exchange very readily for currency units. Ie., your soul has already been bought & sold by someone else. OGT

hey Randy! you should market that skin of yours....because my word its tough!
perhaps you could donate it to NASA - to cover their next space shuttle...(like a condom) ??
there would be no explosions then....they would be so safe inside it

now your more like normal! ....Im not a troll Randy I swear Im not a troll. Ez2b12 has a photograph of me, and my home and few other bits! - (eek...like the view from my window I mean, and NOT dirty stuff!) I like ez
but trolls is scaring me terrible
oh well.....per aspera ad astra

Paganguy, how do you explain the social behaviour of the calahari meercats?....or that dog in Edinburgh last century - who kept a 14 year virgil by his masters grave?
and remember the rhesus monkey experiment in the 1960's? do you consider all this to be 'MOOT'?
sade x

Im going to apologise to you DK - for butting in on yr conversation with DK - I dont know yr writing well enough to be able to 'know' your angle! (but give me time)
Yes language is a barrier for me, in Welsh we have NO letter 'J' - we use double 'F' like its going out of fashion, but I think in Welsh - and have to compensate.
However, grammar is more or less the same in every language, and my question to you is this - do you think that Academia has variable standards in different countries? This train of thought has been bothering me lately (actually to be prefectly frank) since I joined TopDocs.
Its a valid point.

@ Achems Fair enough cariad! - (my daughters name is Carys which is a derivative of Cariad, so Achems - you smoothy! GO BLUSH!
wikkid x

you're lagging. Info can be 'coded' in/by a wide range of conventions - recipes, morse code, ordinary language, graphics, plans, diagrams, or even semaphore. Each form has its strengths & uses. As far as anyone knows, none can work w/out human intelligence. So where is the guiding intelligence that directs & organizes DNA as it does its incredibly clever stuff?

It's like having a small box of mixed chemicals that assembles itself into a computer. Not half the same as adding water to instant noodles, eh? Even then, you have to do that yourself. Or if you are as lazy as me, try to get someone else to do it. OGT

In certain waters there are inter-species based social structures, all assuming a role fitting within a co-dependant system. Much like the animated kids movie Carwash (or something, y'know the one with the catchy song) fish that usually compete, eat and flee according to the established food-chain, momentarily cease and desist, and throw up momentary truce in favour of hygenic/stable food source related reasons.

An actual fish-wash.. I was amazed the first time I saw this, and all to quickly I attributed such an uneasy alliance to moral convictions, only to realize, morality doesn't actually come into question. The system is co-dependant and still very much hormonally driven, despite the controversial nature.

Technically I should be sleeping, but I took a quick peek at the inbox only to be drawn back to this swirling vortex of thoughts.

@Epi:

I think you may have misread my assertion. Cooperation is not necassarily based on a moral system, social behaviour is instinctive to humans, as such, cooperation is the default, not a sign of moral conviction. This is key to my assertion. Cooperation does not necessitate a single mindset, large scale behavioural manipulation however, requires all the noses to point in the same direction, with the same motivation (also crucial).

Morality implies a unified code of conduct, and with unification comes a social structure with purpose. Purpose in turn creates docility, which is the primary surpressor of hormonally influenced behaviour, i.e our animalistic side, which is the primary opponent to a stable social structure.

From whence does purpose derive? Religion. Much like our modern times, surviving and co-existing is not enough "purpose" to surpress hormonal behaviour, as such purpose is introduced in the form of organized religion. This is why, in our other discussion on morality, I dubbed religion the peacekeeper of the ignorant masses.

Religion became the stubborn entity it is through indoctrination, nothing else is needed for a concept to flourish over time. Indoctrination and dedication. People cling to purpose, because they are lost without it. You cannot logically relieve yourself of purpose, without trivializing life which you vowed to deem sacred. It's a web of logic, created by indoctrination.

Obviously this is all original material, which I haven't actually shared with anyone, so I'm very open to feedback.

@Randy: Don't be so quick to dismiss my (admittedly) controversial thoughts, I have surprised you before, my good man.

@OGT, these are analogies, they do not mean that it IS A RECIEPE AND NEEDS A COOK or IS A CODE AND NEEDS A PROGRAMMER.

all physics are a form of code, they do not need some programmer. im sure you will say they do but you have not shown that to necessarily follow. and if you do think it follows then like DK said your logic would have to continue ad infinitum.

the DNA carries a set of proteins and amino acids in a sequenced order which in a way direct what everything does and is. but in no way must it have been written. in fact because of all the JUNK DNA and all the endogenous retroviruses, we can be absolutely SURE that life evolves including DNA which evolves all the time adding new information without the need of some intelligent programmer adding it. it happens through natural selection and random mutation.

once again your analogy fails. so until you actually understand DNA maybe you should withhold your opinion....and that is all it is, an opinion, one that you have regurgitated from others.

@DK

i would say man realized to cooperate before he decided to create an organized system of belief in a superstition. morality would have evolved with our needs to band together in large groups. and as we have seen, chimps show large amounts of morality and ethical structure in many different ways.

i would also say religion is an adaptation, but i wouldnt say it came before morality. i would say organized religions being passed on from family to family through a society would have to come after morality or they never would have been able to create the large group to constitute a religion.

Perry Marshall (a computer programmer) pointed out that no known form of encoding & decoding has ever existed w/out some kind of exterior intelligence.

Expect some devious footwork from the materialist camp (R Dawkins, etc.)! In popular writing, DNA was often likened to a cooking recipe. Did you ever see a recipe that cooked & prepared itself in the kitchen? OGT

D-K,
actually, two or more clues; one is DNA, another mentioned was the self-governing/re-engineering behavior of bacteria. In my claim, both point to the existence of intelligence in the operations of the universe.

So then, DNA coding must have an intelligent agent? Even if we add the alternative word ‘agency’, yes. Who/what was responsible for creating this agent/agency/potency? Unanswerable w/out gibbering into infinite regress.

This far, we only have grounds to dismiss 19C materialism; hooray! But we can’t claim existence of some divine ‘unmoved mover’ (Aristotle). And no comfort for the God religions, except having eliminated the one opponent above, & that only a half victory, if we accept Buddhism as an atheist, materialist religion.

IMHO, what we arrive at is interesting, altho not to everyone’s taste. We have to accept, 1/ that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge, or an absolute principle.

Or, 2/ if such a thing exsts, it is not amenable to the various descriptive or defining systems used by human intelligence. Perhaps, only perhaps, such a thing can only be experienced , by such as great mystics/saints. In this case, the experience is not translatable or communicable to us ordinary mortals. There is either no suitable language/vocabulary, or like time, the experience is one-way, & cannot be reverse-communicated intelligibly, back into the phenomenal world.

In the case of 1/, no absolute knowledge or principle; this seems conclusive, since by its nature, all knowledge forms are seemingly finite, bounded, & cannot obviously refer to, or include. themselves as knowledge.

In the case of 2/, more promising for both science & religions. There is no end-state, just the pursuit of mundane, scientific knowledge, or the pursuit of God/the divine. This is the dialectical solution. It implies that chasing ‘wisdom’ (total or comprehensive knowledge) is a life-process, & that wisdom is neither describable, nor some prize we attain by crossing some notional finishing line. It’s being a runner in the chase or race (I sound more like my poor old headmaster every day).

To end on a controversial note; it may then be the case that researcher & mystic are on converging courses. Teilhard de Chardin thought something like that, as I recall. Those esoteric mathematical models, & the chantings of monks, much the same thing? Maybe they just look the same, only insofar as I can’t make much sense of either! OGT

I just re-read the top of the page, and it seems I never got back to my discussion with Epicurus on evolutionary psychology. Forgot all about it, well if you're still game then so am I. I'm counting on this to be good, seeing as this is your favoured field of study, is it not?

I put it to you that the ability to percieve right and wrong, and act upon either by choice, is not the same as a moral system. Morality implies a unified code of conduct, that is universally applicable. How can you unify the masses and make them face the same direction? Subordinance. Religion.

Therefore, religion predates and is cause to, morality. While I still don't like extending credence to anything religious, I am a proponent of "credit where credit's due", as such my hands are bound. I read the link you provided (naturally) and it appears my idea coincides with the idea of a Richard Sosis (unknown to me) who pleads for "religion as adaptation".

What is your position in the matter? Please take into account that I'm not particularly versed in evo-psychology, and that most, if not all, thoughts are my own.

I see. I'm not sure what 'barking' is, but it's proper etiquette to ensure you understand a person's argument, lest you fall prey to strawmen. It's not correct how, btw?

Could you please quote where I referred to myself in the 3rd person, I have way too much text on this page to simply "check my grammar". Please show me where I made this supposed mistake.

Also, to my knowledge there are several ranches in America that use cloned prime bulls exclusively for grade-a beef, Google might give you some names. The owner of one of those ranches does an interview, and you can see 11 exactly identical bulls lined up behind him. What surprised me most was that I believe the ranch in question was situated in Texas.

Youse thinks that @D-K: is not grammar correct, well me thinks his grammar is honky-dory, mo cuishle. don't forget that he has to envision from other two languages to come up with the right nuances, no??

see Dr Randy - you should have practised medicine in Wales! only last week I was holding a prescription from my Doctor....all written in latin!
so I could easily get by - without learning Latin, tho in my school - I had no choice.
but YOU! You would have been a LEGEND! I can see it now - a book entitled "Latin Buzz Words" by Dr Randy Yank.
ibid

Sorry i thought you were talking to everyone, not just OGT - nevertheless, its not correct to 'signify logical shifts' by 'barking' -
3rd person? - check your grammar - in English its wrong to use the 3 person as you did. I cant explain - it just doesnt read right. thats not an opinion, its grammatically incorrect

off the top of my head - and leaving myself naked before youse critical bunch........
I believe that the people that look at DNA must be very clever to be able to decipher the code (in the way it can be matched) I mean???
I believe that they must be able to match/have 8 similar markers?
I also think they have been able to distinguish the difference between the DNA of an animal to that of a human being.
I think this (animal/human proof) was initially used in a Canadian murder case - and starred 'Snowball' the Cat
Thats all I know - and I think the public (such as myself) is more than happy to know this.
over and above that info - i know nothing - but I am positive that 'someone somewhere' knows more
....Dolly the sheep.....I couldnt sleep for weeks after that! and it still worrys me that some country somewhere is cloning an entire ARMY right now - scares me terrible - see? Epicurious? now I need a sedative!!! (I be ok cos I know Dr Randy will kick me into touch (Rugby speak)
all the above is google free wiki free and copyrighted to vlatko xx yippee xx
@ Eireannach
lol lol just read freaky deeky - how did you know lol Im a professional!!

Because DNA is explained as a code does not mean in anyway that it is a code like that a programmer writes.

if someone says that they either dont know anything about DNA or they are being facetious

and if we do take the position that DNA is a code and needs a programmer...what do you think a programmer would say after looking into our code? do you think he would observe the work of a brilliant code writer? or a very messy sloppy one?

how you answer that will certainly tell me how much you know about DNA.

lol no! but u makes me laugh! I worked in Ockham - yr namesake place! (thats why I asked you!)but youse (yes YOUSE) is ok - i blogged it yonks ago when i was stupid (like last week) dont mean that Ive ever told any lies - I just gave too much away! (blush) x

I don't quite know what to say, my previous comment, the one ending with "What say you to this", was directed at Old Tom Git. I simply forgot adressing him directly at the start of my comment, then again, I quoted him directly right away.

I was summarizing his arguments to find the crux of the discussion, the horns if you will, because I tend to go on tangents, which he attributed to my fancy feet, and the fact that I'm a flibbertygibbet (that still makes me chuckle).

The adage "correct?" is to signify logical shifts. If I misenterpreted anything up until that point, it changes the argument. This way it's easier to understand whether or not I actually understand the person, before I'm left chasing logical wild geese. (this is what actually happened)
Therefore, I decided to use proper debate etiquette, as to avoid such mishaps.

I adressed you 2 specifically on this page, neither comment pertaining to any noteworthy discussion. I don't understand why you think I was adressing you with my last comment, but it's irrelevant now.

Lastly, I'm blogging in 3rd person? huh? Could you quote where I referred to myself as D-K?

My head grows large with such kind words, Vlatko. I have been banned from a forum I used to frequent not too long ago (about a month or so) for being too rational and honest. I called the admin on employing emotional reasoning to an unnecassary degree in respects to certain social conventions, he obviously didn't take it too well.

It's good to see that on TDF, even when 2 parties don't get along, it usually simmers down after an ad-homi or two, and doesn't get blown out of proportion. It's good to see a community favour logical thought-processes over emotional involvement.

Personal diatribes aside, I was also surprised that Achems' native tongue was anything other than English, although I knew about you (don't ask me how, no idea, I think it's because Vlatko sounds Russian, possibly Ukrainian).

I say your talking in riddles - with no room for manoeuvre because you pre-empt every possible arument ( with the adage 'correct') question mark
there should not be a question mark unless you are asking a question - which in this case you were not
because if you were, you would have waited for the answer in your first stanza before summarising and concluding -

in a nutshell - I dont like being railroaded.
If you want to ask that question properly, I am more than qualified to give an opinion. but ask ONE
question (then wait for the answer) etc., etc.,
I shouldnt need to tell you this D-K as you seem like a bright young boy
the balls in yr court - bring it on bro

I to enjoy conferring with the really smart people here, "they know who they are"
Have learned a lot, and am still learning, they only thing going for me, is that basically I have a photographic memory, hows that for ego! (LOL)

Really didn't have no opportunity for school learning, am self taught, and by that, probably learned more than by going to school.

Believe it or not, English is not my first language either!
My fist language is "Russian" but third generation. From the Russian steppes and all that! Hows that for weird? EH!

But anyway enough about me. Really do not like talking about myself. So am hesitant on including this, but what the hay!

““If we see & u/stand the universe via somethng we call
intelligence, is this human intelligence then separate,
apart from the universe?” Correct?

you say it's inherent to matter, you name the complexity
of DNA code as your evidence. You argue that because there is
a code, this signifies there is/has been a coder. An intelligent agent to encode intelligence into matter, correct?

I put it to you that if such an intelligent agent indeed is or has been, his existance is dependant on an agent as well. Since you argue that intelligence must be created by a creator, that same intelligent creator must have had an intelligent creator, repeat ad infinitum.

I like the way you speak, its unbiased - and I think thats what Im trying to say (as well) oh I dont know anymore - guess Randy is right, I need to sharpen my mind, Im getting sluggish (but not repentant) thank you for that!
I appreciate yr candour

@Sadie: I'm confused, you want me to dumb-down my vernacular? I'm already writing at a (community) college reading level, I could go for highschool reading level, but my posts would double in size.

Also, I'm guessing the intimidating comment was directed at Randy?

"Im as guilty as anyone of using big impressive words to elevate my status, but its tantamount to bullying when you know the listener cant take it! – and has EGO written all over it (and thats SO not good!)"

I use big impressive words, because contrary to popular belief, they shorten my texts. "Difficult" words often can convey what otherwise would take a full sentence to get across. I use them for convenience, and to not force the person I'm discussing with to read unnecessarily long texts. I'm being considerately concise. English isn't my first language either, not even my second.

But I guess you're right when I assume TDF's congregation is of above-average intellect, why else would they be here? I also usually discuss matters with people who are smarter than me, it's the best way to learn.

does your significant other keep you in coffee & sarnies while you read? Does she turn down the TV when it disturbs you? Lucky dog; someone stole ma monkey. She never understood a philosopher's needs, selfish creature. I don't troll singles bars either, but surely it's a valid route to uxorious bliss for many?

There's the case of the naked bishop, arrested while trying to roger the horse on Paul Revere's statue. He pleaded the need for sexual toleration. We can learn something from that? OGT

Sadie,
alas, all creative writing involves ego, since that's where new ideas come from. And, all good writers are at least a little crazed.

You want clear, simple English, you'll likely just get secondhand ideas from a third-rate plodder. Form & content, media & messages, all have a dancing, dialectical relationship that is mostly as difficult to understand as why two nice friends fall out & try to murder one-another.

Sorry about that, but arts, philosophy & science are not democratic. They are hierarchical & involve competitive clashes of bloated egos: way it is.

Eg., in many ways Randy has ideas I find repulsive, but that's why I like his posts. He helps keep my addled brain turning.

Just write what you think/feel. You'll get ego-hits, but you'll learn something, I hope. OGT

You are intimidating ....and you know you are - and you seem to 'get off' on it - (hows your private life Randy? - OK?)
D-K - I agree that observation does not equal perception, in my mind, thats just common sense. Doesnt everybody feel the same way?
I agree that science is dynamic.

and thats about all I can say because my brain is twanging like a guitar string, (i think its a small headache caused by either 10 pints of Bishops Finger or an overload of you both!)
Here in UK we have a recognised (kite mark) way of writing - the logo is a Diamond - and its designed to give people the confidence to read the content (of the matter) - ie its written in clear english (dumbed down)
Im as guilty as anyone of using big impressive words to elevate my status, but its tantamount to bullying when you know the listener cant take it! - and has EGO written all over it (and thats SO not good!)
I try hard to relate my words to the level of conciousness of the reader/listener. and on this blog its only fair that you should assume your talking to 'just average' intelligence.
and thats NOT said to insult you guys, quite the contrary.

But how the hell do you expect any (normal) person to learn anything if you keep upping the anti in the vernacular?

I am typing in english and thinking in welsh - its a heavy burden, but im still here - so gimmee a break!

Stick with it guys! - I know how you feel, I feel the same...and I was very scared of these 'geezers' once (I am still wary) but I trust my own common sense and thirst for knowledge to protect me as I ask the st00pid questions!

"“If we see & u/stand the universe via somethng we call intelligence, is this human intelligence then separate, apart from the universe?” Correct?

To which we both agreed of it existing within the uni/multiverse. You claim it is inherent to-

ah.. wait.. I just read that totally differently. Wrong, apparantly. Guess I'm a bit slow today.. can't be helped. I'll get back to you when I can answer this thing properly, I'm gonna have a good think on it.

No weasels, just a rain-check. I'll get back to you when you're slightly older git tom.

“I’d also like to point out that you brought up the “absolutes” issue, as seen here - - “
Not so as to license you to Charleston around the substantive issue, you flibbertygibbet.

“You groped ‘intelligence..? ‘
I groped what I thought was substantive, yet the experience was purely in my subjective impressions of feeling. You’re not too well up on this perception business, are you?

“Yuh-huh, I touched on this (albeit briefly) with my black/white hole example. Please don’t reiterate my thoughts to me, I am aware of them. In fact, I was there when I typed them.”
I have no access to your thoughts, only your textuals. You still haven’t dealt with my point, presence, type, or otherwise.

“Could you explain this to me, I can’t for the life of me figure out what that means.”
Can’t be bothered with feigned mental laziness. Enuf trouble with the real thing.

“So you’re arguing that man was meant to decode DNA in a deterministic sense? To what end?”
Recap: if DNA carries coded info (are you denying biology on this?), who/what codes & decodes? Simple! This is your problem.

“I agree more explanation is required, but again, absense of an answer is not necassarily an answer in itself. You are building your castle on a swamp, sir.”
The question is yours to answer, sir, not mine. And your science castle floats on the miasmas of perception.

“I’m just going to skip over that one.”
Wise choice! I thought it only fair to warn you of an impending trouncing. Too fair? It’s the kinda guy I am.

“Those are the options you’re willing to chose from, not necassarily the options that logic dictates. “
The options are the two of the paradox, involving mind & matter. Anything else is a different issue, or extraneous matter introduced by your good self to sow enuf confusion to cover your retreat from the horns of the dilemma.

“By your definition the rocks in my yard are intelligent. They’re not. Matter of fact I find them boring.”
But they contain coded info, do they not? If not, lawks, bang goes geology. That some ‘info’ is chemically or mechanistically transmitted is irrelevant. In any case, human intelligence is required to ‘decode’ it. Isn’t that what science does? The paradox was posed by me, & you have to resolve it. To whit, is intelligence inherent in a material universe, or blah, blah, blah. Remember?

“To which I say ‘referent: The absense of anything’.
That’s it, by jove. By ‘nothing’ we denote the absence of some/any/thing, at/in an unlocatable hole in the space-time continuum. In which case, what are we talking about, referring to? Geddit?

“Semantical, but I’d still like to point out that true/false is multiple choice, whereas your (absolute) statement negates a second option, “must be” implies only 1 option, rather than 2.”
Not semantical, a logical imperative. The paradox has two choices. It requires you to opt for mind in matter, or outside it. You’re still dancing divinely, but dodging your inevitable checkmate. C’mon, come out the closet. Be proud you’re a materialist, & devil take the consequences!

“This is fun.”
Thanks to Fuertstrangler’s Alte Philosoph Lager. The genius in the bottle! OGT

@OGT: First off, you're falsely equating observation to subjective perception, sidestepping my argument, as seen here: "Experimental psychology tells us ‘perception is concept dependent’. All observations are indeed moot, so no contradiction." Observation does not equal perception.

I wasn't. I was commenting on some of your assertions, I haven't seen this doc (yet). I'd also like to point out that you brought up the "absolutes" issue, as seen here: "Science is justifiably proud of the laws derived this way, but ‘laws’ of science are not absolute truths, just the most reliable & useful, pro tem. They are subject to revision, since science by its very nature is progressive, dynamic"

---

"If you’re not impressed by multiverse, why bring it up? Not trying to blind me with science, are you?"

I didn't bring up the multiverse concept. The only time I mentioned it is when I refer to what you refer to simply as; the universe. This implies a person is of opinion that he or she exists within a universe. I will not possit favour in any way, as such I name both. It's a matter of logical semantics, I have a somewhat convoluted writing style, I suppose.

"Not really, in actuality: since the ‘thing-in-itself’ is imperceptible, so intangible, daily, we negotiate that, & even by that. I can dimly recal groping the thing-in-itself in my youth"

You groped "intelligence"..? How ... disturbing. lol. I have some texture related questions, care to indulge..? But seriously, I'll just move on.

"And commonly, scientifically, & philosophically, we derive the impercetible from its effects, eg., gravity, or to go back to Socrates, virtue."

Yuh-huh, I touched on this (albeit briefly) with my black/white hole example. Please don't reiterate my thoughts to me, I am aware of them. In fact, I was there when I typed them.

"Logic leaps empirical evidence with a single bound, & cuts 99% of all known ****"

Could you explain this to me, I can't for the life of me figure out what that means.

"Coding by definition enables information to be transmitted, then decoded. No further searches required"

So you're arguing that man was meant to decode DNA in a deterministic sense? To what end?

"Which requires some more sophisticated explaining than the contact or chemical causality beloved of materialist-science"

I agree more explanation is required, but again, absense of an answer is not necassarily an answer in itself. You are building your castle on a swamp, sir.

"Not foolish, wise & necessary (in reference to necessity of absolute statements) And you can refute Mr Marshall’s position by simply citing one form of coding/decoding that involves no intelligent agent (hint: Chinese Box eg., of old artificial intelligence debate?)."

I'm just going to skip over that one.

"Where to apply The Razor is a matter of judgement, & the quality of the choice is usually revealed in the outcome. Here, I see no ‘infinite number of possibilities’. The options are, is intelligence in matter, or in some other realm."

Those are the options you're willing to chose from, not necassarily the options that logic dictates. By your definition the rocks in my yard are intelligent. They're not. Matter of fact I find them boring.

Ye olde Git Tom said:

"As they were asking in the 17th century, ‘What is ‘no thing (nothing)?’ The word has no referent"

To which I say "referent: The absense of anything"

"“Lastly: ‘Intelligence must be inherent, imminent in matter’ is an absolute.”

No more or less than true/false are. OGT"

Semantical, but I'd still like to point out that true/false is multiple choice, whereas your (absolute) statement negates a second option, "must be" implies only 1 option, rather than 2.

Swill?! I can't squeeze lengthy expositions in a blogette such as this, but I did cite my authorities. Sorry to tread on your illusions, but science is another b***h who will let you down (who/what is moderating/moiderin' my honest Anglo-Saxon English?).

And what sort of world is it when you can't even have faith in atheism? Personally, I put my trust in Fuertstrangler's Lager & my dog, altho I cynically suspect he only hangs around for the daily tin of Chunkiechops, Food for the Hungry Pooch.

So if there is any scientist out there who can really do this DNA thing, I'd like a cloned Marilyn Monroe, or Mitzi Gaynor. I'm willing to pay up to $20 for the necessary chemicals. Can't say fairer than that. OGT

my apologies (again? yes, mind gone); but you should take that as a compliment. There is much to be commended in your irrepressible positivism. I had a mental impression of young Mickey Rooney. Last I read he was still doing theater in London, & sounding about 18, not 80+. And yeah, I expect we both carry a lot of scars & patches. Most of mine were self-induced, or inflicted by inferior persons who never saw what a brilliant & lovable person I was, under the repulsive & arrogant superficials. Never mind, as Schopenhauer said, "Life's a bitch, & then you die". My pal says, "Life's a bitch, & then you marry one". OGT

“Seriously, I know that people are afraid of the concept that life is mercilessly random, and no one, (no god, governement, doctors, parents, no-one…) is looking out for us, (or CONTROLLING us), but that is just how it is… All of this is random chance. Mandelbrott’s equations didn’t open your eyes to how simple the Universe really is?”

The idea of a universe built on random processes was shot down by ace Howard Bloom (see his site). It went down off NYU, belching flames. He is filthy rich, so he can ignore the howls of the science community.

Mandellbrot did brilliantly in explaining aspects of the relationship of simple & complex forms, as in geometry. Complexity itself is no more or less an illusion than any other human-generated category. It is a necessary category, so ‘real’. Like, w/out it we could not say that the ‘Principia Mathematica’ was more complicated than a bus timetable.

“What I am saying is you don’t need any “code”, DNA is four simple blocks and all forms come from that. We know where DNA comes from… “

No, we don’t, but we are learning more about it.

“You repeat a simple pattern long enough, it starts to look complex. But when you discect it, it turns into… nothing special…That goes for everything… including human primate politics, economy, sexuality…”

Randy, you krazy kid, you confound your earlier statement. If complexity is an ‘illusion’, then so equally is simplicity (they are correlates). You seem to be a victim of rather outdated scientistic bullshine. This is called ‘reductionism’. In fact, the deeper science goes into many areas, the more sophistication & complexity it finds. It is always poised (dramatically) on the threshold of a ‘final breakthru’. It gets more funding that way. When DNA was discovered, it was trumpeted as ‘the secret of life’. It wasn’t.

“It falls apart. The Arrow of Entropy, rate of decay… that is where truth lies, if you believe in truth, and if you have the strength of character to look into that abyss… and survive.”

Entropy doom was raging over a century ago, but we are still here, despite. I’ve looked into more abysses than you’ve had lukewarm pizzas. Don’t get carried away by science. It’s keen stuff, but so is a Bach composition. Mathemeticians have analyzed & marvelled at Bach’s symmetries & math-like musical structures, but they can only write poor pastiches with their computer programs. It aint that simple.

Science theories come & go. Big Bang is currently fashionable. If you can swallow the idea that it all began out of an ‘infinitessimal point’, good luck. I’m less impressionable. I’m going to swallow a beer. OGT

“First and foremost, I’d argue that observation =/= involvement, this is not an absolute. While I’m intriqued by the premise, the mechanic is a potential variable at most, which would be indicatory of it’s inability to be an instrument of logical exclusion.”

Fancy footwork! But over-elaboration; we do not observe the thing-in-itself, we have subjective perceptions of something. Experimental psychology tells us ‘perception is concept dependent’. All observations are indeed moot, so no contradiction.

“Agreed, but then science is not about establishing truth, (even if referred to as the search of truth) it is about explaining phenomena and making it comprehensive to the human paradigm by means of certain sub-instruments (math, geo, phy). Any notion of truth is inherently philosophic, as such, irrelevant to science, irrelevant to understanding. Simply irrelevant.”

More pedal intricacies; we are not juggling absolute truths, merely weighing the relative claims of science & religion/s (re the movie).

If you’re not impressed by multiverse, why bring it up? Not trying to blind me with science, are you?

Not really, in actuality: since the ‘thing-in-itself’ is imperceptible, so intangible, daily, we negotiate that, & even by that. I can dimly recal groping the thing-in-itself in my youth. Now that’s all a fading memory. And commonly, scientifically, & philosophically, we derive the impercetible from its effects, eg., gravity, or to go back to Socrates, virtue. Science often claims to provide ‘hard’ info. Undoubtedly, but that is a qualitative claim. Insofar as math intrudes, that is a human, mental construct, akin to metaphysics. But don’t tell the mathematicians that. They go puce, particulalrly as they are often not good with the verbals.

“This statement is axiomatically illogical. Not all Coded material has been mapped. This falls under the ‘imposed ignorance’ otherwise referred to as the logical fallacy; Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.”

Logic leaps empirical evidence with a single bound, & cuts 99% of all known crap. Coding by definition enables information to be transmitted, then decoded. No further searches required. This implies intentionality of some kind, particularly with the densely packed info of DNA. Which requires some more sophisticated explaining than the contact or chemical causality beloved of materialist-science. But now you can redefine ‘intelligence’ if you like.

“Any scientist will shy away from making absolute statements, such as mr. Marshall’s up there. Making absolute statements in a world that, as observation suggests does not dabble with absolutes, is foolish.”

Not foolish, wise & necessary. The litmus paper is either blue or red. That’s an absolute judgement made by baby scientists every day. And you can refute Mr Marshall’s position by simply citing one form of coding/decoding that involves no intelligent agent (hint: Chinese Box eg., of old artificial intelligence debate?).

“Occam’s Razor does not apply in situations in which there are too many unknown variables. Occam’s Razor is effective when one decided between a small numbers of answers, not a potentially infinite number of possibilities. To assume your assertion on such a highly philosophical questions is the simplest, therefore correct, is youthfull arrogance.”

Loved the ‘youthfull’ bit, but you can’t smooth-talk me. Where to apply The Razor is a matter of judgement, & the quality of the choice is usually revealed in the outcome. Here, I see no ‘infinite number of possibilities’. The options are, is intelligence in matter, or in some other realm.

Anti-matter? Science talks as loosely as I do of a ‘material world/universe’. How anti-stuff fits that I leave to science to tell me. In philosophy, negation is a whole Glass Bead Game. As they were asking in the 17th century, ‘What is ‘no thing (nothing)?’ The word has no referent.

“Lastly: ‘Intelligence must be inherent, imminent in matter’ is an absolute.”

You said, "DNA is coded & no coding exists without without some intelligent coder/agent..."

That's like saying every time a roll a "6" on a six-sided die... THERE IS PROOF OF GOD!

Seriously, I know that people are afraid of the concept that life is mercilessly random, and no one, (no god, governement, doctors, parents, no-one...) is looking out for us, (or CONTROLLING us), but that is just how it is...

All of this is random chance. Mandelbrott's equations didn't open your eyes to how simple the Universe really is?

"If inside, we have no handle on any notons of ‘objectivity’, since what we observe may be phenomena generated from our act of observation."

Ah, the 2 slit adaptation, interesting. First and foremost, I'd argue that observation =/= involvement, this is not an absolute. While I'm intriqued by the premise, the mechanic is a potential variable at most, which would be indicatory of it's inability to be an instrument of logical exclusion.

Your premise conflicts with itself, it renders all observations moot on a "may be". You cannot create a t-section on a "may be", it's unscientific. ;)

"They do not establish truth, just the most reliable ‘facts’ & information"

Agreed, but then science is not about establishing truth, (even if referred to as the search of truth) it is about explaining phenomena and making it comprehensive to the human paradigm by means of certain sub-instruments (math, geo, phy). Any notion of truth is inherently philosophic, as such, irrelevant to science, irrelevant to understanding. Simply irrelevant.

"Science is justifiably proud of the laws derived this way, but ‘laws’ of science are not absolute truths, just the most reliable & useful, pro tem. They are subject to revision, since science by its very nature is progressive, dynamic."

I did not, nor have I ever, argue otherwise, I agree.

"Multiverse theory offers no help in this area, since it invites infinite regress. If infinite universes exist, anything is possible/explicable. Not very scientific!"

I don't know if you interpreted my argument as multiverse propaganda, but I'm not now, nor have I ever advocated the multiverse concept with any level of conviction other than recognizing it as a theory/theorem. If anything, I find the glaring logical inconsistancies within the many worlds theory
to be too abundant at this point. It's all conjecture, while fascinating, a bit too fruitless for my tastes.

"That intelligence derives from consciousness is a popular theory, I humbly suggest, but not a fact established by observation"

Obviously, observing the intangible requires an inhuman amount of fortitude. Much like with black/white holes, one can only observe behaviour as influenced by various levels of intelligence, than map the variations in behaviour and rate them on several (highly subjective) catagories, defeating the point of it. Experiments will not be viable until it's able for a human to distance hormonal influence, behaviour as influenced by a socio-moral frame of reference and actual intelligence from one another, a feat not easily accomplished... but I digress.

"DNA is coded, & no coding exists w/out some intelligent coder/agent"

This statement is axiomatically illogical. Not all Coded material has been mapped. This falls under the "imposed ignorance" otherwise referred to as the logical fallacy; Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Any scientist will shy away from making absolute statements, such as mr. Marshall's up there. Making absolute statements in a world that, as observation suggests does not dabble with absolutes, is foolish.

Occam's Razor does not apply in situations in which there are too many unknown variables. Occam's Razor is effective when one decided between a small numbers of answers, not a potentially infinite number of possibilities. To assume your assertion on such a highly philosophical questions is the simplest, therefore correct, is youthfull arrogance.

(sidenote; if intelligence is inherent to matter, then what of anti-matter?)

(sidesidenote; would explain how matter triumphed over anti-matter though, with great cunning! lol)

I don't have an answer, I have too little data to proceed to a stage in which I feel comfortable drawing a conclusion that holds up logically, therefore I abstain.

Lastly: "Intelligence must be inherent, imminent in matter" is an absolute.

“No, human intelligence is a part of the uni/multiverse, perhaps you should elaborate on how you came to this question.”

I am posing a paradox for science which is as intractable as the existence of evil for the religious.
Whether a uni-verse or multi-verse, the same problem remains. Are we who observe it/them outside, or inside? If inside, we have no handle on any notons of ‘objectivity’, since what we observe may be phenomena generated from our act of observation.

If perception & human intelligence (observation) are outside, how so? From what privileged, aetherial platform are we observing? This is pretty much the classic prob of set theory. Draw a circle. Label this container ‘E’ for ‘everything’. Then this symbol ‘E’ is not itself contained in the circle. Keep drawing further, bigger circles, etc., etc.

Experiments? Good suggestion, since they can sort consistencies from dreams, fantasies & other aberrations. But same base problem remains. They do not establish truth, just the most reliable ‘facts’ & information. Science is justifiably proud of the laws derived this way, but ‘laws’ of science are not absolute truths, just the most reliable & useful, pro tem. They are subject to revision, since science by its very nature is progressive, dynamic.

“This confuses me. Intelligence is irrelevant to the uni/multiverse. Intelligence derives from consciousness. From whence does consciousness derive? No idea.”

Multiverse theory offers no help in this area, since it invites infinite regress. If infinite universes exist, anything is possible/explicable. Not very scientific!
That intelligence derives from consciousness is a popular theory, I humbly suggest, but not a fact established by observation. There is awkward counter-evidence.
Writer Perry Marshall comes from IT theory: DNA is coded, & no coding exists w/out some intelligent coder/agent.
Howard Bloom quotes research that has identified intelligent organization at bacteria level. Given a hostile environment, bacteria can de-volve, then re-engineer their DNA to adapt! Dashed clever these critters! And randomness-plus-selection has no part.

Wishing you hadn’t bitten? Try Occam’s Razor. Intelligence must be inherent, imminent in matter. If you have a better answer, you win a stuffed alligator & astrolabe. OGT

"If we see & u/stand the universe via somethng we call intelligence, is this human intelligence then separate, apart from the universe?"

No, human intelligence is a part of the uni/multiverse, perhaps you should elaborate on how you came to this question.

"If it is not, how can we claim any scientific knowledge is objective?"

Experiments. Scientific conclusions predicate answers on the results of specific situations/scenarios with certain parameters. The beauty of it is that any person with any random philosophical conviction can test established conclusions, and it encouraged to do so.

The fact that science is continually trying to debunk itself and the "rules" it establishes in favour of gaining the most complete perspective on any given situation, speaks of its objective nature strides towards true objectivity, is what makes it the most objective method of obtaining truth and absolutes.

The knowledge is objective if it is based on scientific research, which is inherently objective. Objective knowledge is a logical extension (conclusion)of objective testing.

"If intelligence is separate & objective in relation to the universe, where does it come from? Where does it reside?"

This confuses me. Intelligence is irrelevant to the uni/multiverse. Intelligence derives from consciousness. From whence does consciousness derive? No idea.

You probably see the fact that we don't have an answer to that as an answer in itself, when it really doesn't have to be. Or maybe I'm just totally misreading you. Clarification is required.

if you were really mean to me, I'd come round & mash yer knees. The bigger they are, the faster they knock yer down, is what I say, or something like that. I cuddabin a contender. Looking forward to the next bout. OGT

"Science has the Scientific method, that tests truth and subjects it to rigorous scrutiny."

But,remember, I am assuming an infinite universe. If You can imagine a situation wherein our scientific observations and conclusions do not apply. Then somewhere, at sometime, that imagined situation was, is, or will be, reality. Exhistence is not painted in black and white. There are shades and colors and realities that we haven't even imagined. There is no end to what we can learn, and accomplish. To assume that our Science's provide us with absolute truths, is no better than blindly believing religious dogma. Science helps us interpret that which is already known, and to provide us with new questions to help further our understanding of infinity.

Progress, not material wealth, makes our societies and , so called, civilizations possible. Imagine how much we could accomplish if every single human being on the face of the earth had education, work, shelter, food, healthcare, access to information. If you can imagine it, you can see the future, or the past, or the now. Who knows?

Randy,
you rather undermine your spiel on the scientific method by your wild surmises about me - untouched by empirical evidence. Do they do science with a crystal ball, an astrolabe, & a stuffed alligator down your way? OGT

I do agree, but, I feel the need to make a distinction between Religion and the pursuit of spiritual knowledge. Religion, all to often, encourages ignorance among it's devotes. Religion, or, more specifically, God worship, does not encourage the pursuit of absolute truths. Quite the opposite really. Religion tends to promote supposed truths as absolutes. This is a dangerous practice, to say the least, and one that serves as an obstacle to the pursuits I was refering to. The Dawkinsians can suck an egg as far as I'm concerned. While I admire the man for what he's trying to acomplish, to treat him like some sort of prophet, is no better than blatant idolism.

I agree that science is a subjective means for us to try and understand exhistence. I re-iterate that it is the pursuit of absolute knowledge (whether moral, phisical, or spiritual) that I advocate. I conceded that we will never achieve perfection along theses lines but the pursuit is still an admirable one. Perhaps our scientific persuits are just a limited way of interpreting an intelligence that is inherent in all that exhists. This intelligence in no way equates to the exhistence of a benevolent creator God, that exhist outside of the universe. I am merely suggesting that the universe, and everything that inhabits it possess an inherent intelligence that strives to be understood. Intelligence is just another aspect of an infinite universe. God worship, and God fearing are obstacles to the righteous desire to understand this universal intelligence. Not sure if this makes any sense or not. I'm just trying to make sense of it all using the admittedly limited tools at my disposal.

If we see & u/stand the universe via somethng we call intelligence, is this human intelligence then separate, apart from the universe?
If it is not, how can we claim any scientific knowledge is objective?
If intelligence is separate & objective in relation to the universe, where does it come from? Where does it reside?
OGT

Well, While I admire your desire to want to continue to support you wife after you pass, I despise capitalism and materialism, and, along with my dream of a world void of religion, I throw my support behind the idea of global socialism. I only hope that I get to be present when my utopian ideals become a reality. And I hope the same for you and your wife.

My purpose now is to make sure I got enough cash when I die that my wife can live trouble free for another 10 years or so. I can only do that with hard work and knowledge. That's it. That's my purpose.

Simple. My purpose in life is to look out for my family, which is my wife. If I had kids, them too, (but I hate kids).

We are the enemies of ignorance, and dogma, and, I for one am happy to play that role. If I succeed in de-converting even one religiously faithful person than I will be satisfied that I have played an important role in our destiny to become masters of the universe. This is why I am constantly drawn to this kind of discourse. In my mind it is the most righteous pursuit that I can undertake.

You don't need the concept of God in order to believe that we are all immortal souls. Life is full of meaning and purpose. The pursuits of absolute truths (whether moral, phisical, or, spiritual) are all good reasons to want to continue to live, and to evolve eternally. Though perfection, along these lines, can never be achieved the pursuit should be enough. It's not the destination that really matters, it's the journey.

And, how about the possibility that we exhist in an infinite universe? Assuming an infinite universe is the reality of our situation then anything that can happen has happened and will happen again. In other words, if the fundamental elements for life have always exhisted in a universe that is boundless and infinitely divisable then random chance is enough for all forms of life to have come into exhistence. I see no need for God and find it much more palatable to think that the universesimply has alway's been.

Which is not to say that a creator is not possible just that he is not God. And, if people still need a reason for living then how about trying to become everything that we wish God to be. It's not faith that I take issue with, faith is a powerful and beautiful force in the world. To have faith in your fellow man, and our potential to be greater than God, is truly righteous. To have faith in God, and his supposed love for humanity, is truly foolhardy.

The best argument I have heard against the exhistence of a benevolent creator God is an ancient one and it is as follows;

THE RIDDLE OF EPICURUS:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus

This argument has convinced me that if a creator exhists then he is a sadist, and is undeserving of our love and worship.

Another quote that I find to be very justifiable is;

"The world will never know civilization until the last stone, in the last church, falls on the last priest."(Sorry can't recall the source.)

And a couple more I feel are relevent,

"Beware the pursuit of the superhuman: it leads to an indiscrimanite contempt for the human."
-George Bernard Shaw (Man and Superman)

"Seize the moments of happiness, love and be loved! That is the only reality in the world, all else is folly."
-Tolstoy (War and Peace)

Thats all I have to share. Now I'll watch the doc and try to keep an open mind.

if sanity is encouraging Israel to start a nuclear war with Iran, I'm crazy as a coot, no two ways.

Word on the street is, Iran bought old nuclear rockets from the Ukrainian mafia years ago. Israel just wants to provoke the ragheads into using them, then they can let rip big time, screaming blue murder about defending eretz Israel.

Hey, but I'm just a whacko. What's the sane word from Yankee Diddle Land? The world of psychology awaits with baited breath. OGT

you seem to be a krazy, mixed-up, right-wing kid who wants to get some issues off his chest. It must be tough being a conservative in a college where all the cats have long hair & wear flared trousers. There is you in a three-piece suite holding a Right to Life banner, as they gaily dance the night away to jass music.

Never you mind. Hang on, son. In a few more months, you will either go into daddy's Wall Street business, or get a commission & participate in the Israeli invasion of Iran.

Fear nothing of Armageddon. You'll get a bit of Rapture, then spend eternity with the angels, dropping napalm on all those dirty, pinko, liberal, hippie rascals in Hell. Hahaha, you'll have the last laugh, son.

IF your religious view requires you to reject science then so be it. Just clench your teeth in biology class, ace the tests by spitting back what the teacher wants to hear, pass the course and move on. If you are an IDer or creationist, you certainly won't have a career in science anyways, so it doesn't really matter.

I'm taking an intro cultural anthropology class right now and the prof is laying his left-wing view of society on pretty thick. The course makes me think, gives me a couple new angles to look at society, and in the end I still think he's living in a hippie dream world. So what? I don't get pissed, I have no burning desire to petition to change the course content... I learn what he wants to hear, take notes on it, and ace the tests by repeating it back to him. In the end, I'll still be a libertarian plus I'll be 3 credit hours closer to graduation.

What gets me is where you guys come up with the guts to try to weasel your pseudoscience into public classrooms. Your opinions are BLATANTLY based SOLELY on a very narrow minority religious opinion... WTF guys!? How can you possibly think that's kosher? If you feel that strongly about it, send little Johnny or Sally to a private Christian school, or better yet, home school them like all the REAL hardcore fundamentalists do. Don't try to make ALL of us scientifically illiterate.

I think you mean 'natural selection' - Darwin's evolution theory? Other forms of evolution theory have been around for hundreds of years.

It has been 'proven' that DNA is not just chemicals (see Perry Marshall website, or Harold Bloom's). It embodies coded information, which has to be decoded to form an embryo. This implies that some form of intelligence exists in matter, which scuppers Darwinian materialism.

By Darwin's 19C definition, matter is dumb, inanimate & lacks motility. Breach that fundamental, & you have no coherent way to distinguish life-forms from 'stuff'.

hehehe I still get a kick out of this They keep calling evolution a theory when its been proven over and over life is no more then basic chemistry amino acids Bond all by them selves all the time and the line between the organic and inorganic is very thin its only the simple minded people that cant hold this in their heads

Not a bad vid on the issue, but as a popular treatment, always going to leave out much.

Sorry the US science teacher had to lose his job, but pity no mention was made of the worse case of Rupert Sheldrake. He was a respected figure until he challenged darwinian orthodoxy. He was blackballed from research institutes & funding for 25 years - by the darwinian Establishment. It is dogmatically intransigent where dissenters are concerned.

Sadly, darwinians such as R Dawkins commonly accuse the opposition of 'ignorance'. Yet this same man has yet to realise that Darwinism is a materialist theory. So, he feels free to theorise about 'memes' - immaterial ideas that evolve. He is too ignorant of basic philosophy to distinguish materialism from idealism.

Re the role of chance in natural selection, Miller committed a gaffe. If the present order of the universe were truly a haphazard result of chance events, any & every alternative shape of things would be explicable in the same terms. Fine, but that is a profoundly unscientific assumption, which boils down crudely to, "Grit happens".

Science assumes & seeks the order of the universe. An outlook that dismisses this, ends as an unscientific & charlatan means of explaining all by denying any coherence. OGT

Constantine Francis Chassebeuf De Volney, published in 1793 "The French Citizen's Catechism". In 1797 a translation by Mr. Volney into English was accomplished. Under the title "The Ruins of Empires" on page 145, hints of "Intelligent Design" flow from the eighth system of his chapter on 'Origin and Filiation of Religious Ideas'. "...They pretended that this universe, these heavens, these stars, this sun, differed in no respect from an ordinary machine; and applying to this first hypothesis a comparison drawn from the works of art, they raised an edifice of the most whimsical sophisms. A machine, said they, does not make itself; it has had an anterior workman; its very existence proves it. The world is a machine; therefore it had an artificer (maker or designer).

In his publication, on page 146, the word 'intelligence' is ascribed to the Great Artificer; the plan pre-existent in the understanding as the 'logos'(the second grade of divinity). Finally, the 'spirit' completed the divinity of the Artificer.

Volney wrote, "And here, Christians! is the romance on which you have founded your trinity; here is the system which, born a heretic in the temples of Egypt, transported a pagan into the schools of Greece and Italy, is now found to be good, catholic, and orthodox, by the conversion of its partisans, the disciples of Pythagoras and Plato, to Christianity."

In his book, Mr. Volney addresses leaders from diverse religious backgrounds. A brief history of their origins as they all stemmed from religious ideas developed by Africans. That the world today, should continue to be locked and bound by the evolution of ideologies; first expressed artistically in rock art that can be found at Game Pass Shelter, is astounding! That the root of beliefs, morphed into so many diverse religions, continues to hold sway over the descendants of humans who recorded their ideas around 27,000 B.C.

Volney stated, in his description of Ethiopia, and the ruins of Thebes "There a people, now forgotten, discovered, while others were yet barbarians, the elements of the arts and sciences. A race of men, now rejected from society for their sable skin and frizzled hair, founded on the study of the laws of nature, those civil and religious systems which still govern the universe."

By all accounts, they still do and will do so for a long time to come. It is a lot like the DNA evidence that resides in all humans: it's there forever!

I would rather believe Charles Darwin who wrote his own book based on what he observed, and on experiments people conducted. Darwin never said that he had all the answers.
Instead of believing a book that was not even written by God, or Jesus. in a time when there were lots of Gospels being written besides the 4 main ones that make up the Bible.
Why should everyone have to believe in the Bible, i thought we all had free choice.
Wars have never been fought over evolution unlike every war that was fought over religion.
Billions of people have died over the Bible, even though it say's thou shalt not kill...
I myself am a Agnostic and i believe in what i can see with my own eyes. that i know will be the only truth.

the 2 reason of death in all of man history is war (2nd only to mosquito bite) and the main reason of war is religion.. your seeing it now in the middle east and part of african..

the word that kill most are infidel(extremely racist prejudice) and in godname(use for charge and battlecry)

the #1 enemy of science is religion.. cause their ideas is completely opposite.. religion is 1st unchanging and if there in power they will force all to be unchanging.2nd blind believe. while science is 1st for constant change, improvement, and revolution. 2nd scientist should prove themself first..

so maybe god is right were already civilist we should stop relaying on him were no longer savage

I disagree with the existance of right and wrong before religion manifested due to the following reason:

Morals are judgements of behaviour that are passed on by parents/child rearers. There is no reasoning to morals as they are instilled in a child too young to base his own judgement seeing as there is no frame of reference at that point. Morals are thus irrational (from the child's pov) in the scope of human behaviour yet are beneficial to societal structure.

Religion brought a sustem of unified moral codes to be subjugated on every new-born, effectively making it a self-sustaining system. God, as we know him now, wasn't the first and certainly not the only god to force a lifestyle onto humans, but at any rate, he who created religion, created morals. Morals are not exclusive to monotheistic Gods (lol, plural paradox)

Whether or not they cared for human trials and tribulations, humans formed certain elements of their lifestyle to please them.

You overestimate the credence I mean to bestow on god/religion, although it's apparant from my comment as to why. I'm late for an appointment and I hate breaking off mid-ramble but we'll pick this up later.

We should dismiss religion's function so readily, it is first and foremost, the peacekeeper of the masses.

God, and everything that comes with him/it, served a purpose, He stands for ultimate justice. If it were not for the intricate circular logic manifested in his word (the bible) societies would not have formed. Without heaven or hell, the everyman's right and wrong, there would be no consequence to bad behaviour. Woman would be raped, goods would be stolen, there would be no security and everybody would be free to do as he please.

Right and wrong are man-made concepts, as I believe religion and God are. The christian way of life provided a pillar for culture and society to form. I'd argue that it doesn't have a place in current day society as we have laws of our own at this point, but it just goes to show it's effectiveness. A non-believer can only be humbled by it's effectiveness to make man into basically a docile creature, adopting morals and codes of conduct that are fairly outdated, to say the least.

Even though I can't stand the ignorance the bible instills into children due to indoctrination by simpleton parents, it has brought structure to an otherwise instable (early) human mind. While i'd implore religious folk to teach no religion until the child as a defined personality and the frame of reference to actually reason for himself, I know this question would fall on deaf ears.

I believe religion to be a crutch for the gullible and easily manipulated, and we'd need to reintroduce natural selection in humans to rid ourselves of it.. Well, i'm guessing come 2029 (the predicted quantum revolution) will kick some shins as well, but to rid us of religion and bestow enlightened reasoning globally, it will need some seriously jaw-dropping material.

Religion brings death. It's relationship with Jesus that brings life. The godly aren't afraid of the theory of evolution, it's just that when you have been set free from the law of sin and death, you don't need any theories to go by. I would be kind of like a woman that looked, dressed, smelled, talked, and acted like ... See Moreyour wife coming into your home and trying to convince you she was your real wife. Once you took just a moment to look into her eyes or get close to her, you would know she was an imposter and would have no desire to be with her. That doesn't denote fear, just that you know the truth.

It all comes down to credibility. Science is more credible nowadays so people believe in it as opposed to any other discipline. If we were to assume it were a person, it is not to say that all that comes out of its mouth is the truth and nothing but the truth just because it got acouple of things right in the past and has overthrown the old-master its brother, religion.

An example of scientific theory that in the past actually went out of paper and into public policy was the whole thing to do with sterilizing so called genetic inferior ppl to stop them breeding and thus spreading there bad genes that I believe was used in america in th early 20th century - the idea is simple looks good on paper but I think we can all agree it wasnt right whatsoever, not only morally but scientifically aswell as you know I dont see no genetically superior peeps walking about that arose from that piece of social experiment. My point being this are some of the dangers when this soo called theorys are believed so strongly that they become public policy due to public support and its opposition which in this case are creationists and other ppl with alternative ideas are rediculed and laughed at as being ignorant and irrational.

what is to say magical fairies do not exist?? I mean as far as any logical person should be concerned the idea of a magical fairy and the idea of evolution are only that, IDEAS. None has been proven as a clear cut fact, and none has been disproven either. Evolution is appealing makes sense, is nice and logical but dispite how awesome it looks on paper and the legions of fossils that have been collected it will never become scientific 100% fact like I dont know, the speed of light??

Why? Because science is all about experimentation and as they havent or cannot devise any experiment to test evolution then it will always be classified as just theory and nuthing more. I suppose the only reason people cling to it despite the possibility of it being one-day proven wrong is that it belongs to the family of science. Better believe in an outragious theory under the umbrella of science than I dont know another under the umbrella of religion or spirituality... I suppose its to do with the age we live in.

Charles B,
I think that your argument that we should "trust" first and then understand is a horrible one because it begs the question. In other words it sets out to prove what it already assumes, or that It assumes that something is true in the first place without leaving room for error, and understanding becomes extremely restricted. Something should be accepted because it is justified with good explanations and evidence,but if a body of knowledge has no justification of that sort then we do not have to accept it. The faith you present is precisely what people are criticizing because its subversive to scientific epistemology that has proven itself to work and improve.

I can't believe that in this day and age that something like intelligent design would even be considered part of any learning curriculum.
With all the available information, to grasp onto bronze age myths and legends is just bizarre.

I've read all the posts above, and I would have something to say...
First, I don't think that religion is about control of the masses and manipulation. The vast majority of religious people have no connection with authority, and they have no reason to impose religion based on that. Also, a great deal of clergymen really believe what they teach. It's not that they want to manipulate the public. No one is as indoctrinated as the one who indoctrinates...
Then, the Bible DID suffer changes along the history, contrary to what the Church claims. Even the fact that languages to which is translated are so different yelds many different interpretations. I often find myself laughing at the minister when he preaches intimate meanings of what Jesus said here and there, because I know those meanings are absolutely nonsense in English for example.
To what Charles B said, "god of the gaps" means that less and less things are explained by the existence of God. Thousands of years ago the occurence of pregnacies were explained as miracles, the lightnings, the rain, the floods, plants growing, the Sun setting and then rising again in the morning, everything was explained by "the works of God". Nowadays we understand many of these things as natural fenomena.
As for the metaphores in the Bible, who decides what is metaphore and what is literally true? Along the history, less and less things were held as biblical FACTS. One can only wonder, is ANY of the things described in the Bible true? A thing to remember, the Bible was written in the Bronze Age. By people with limited knowledge. An all knowing God would have given a more interesting and more understandable message, that could reach ALL the humans. And by the way, God showing in the clouds, waving to people and shouting here and there would make, I think, a more compelling evidence that he exists.

Most people look at what they want to see, subconsciously they are always thinking of what they want to see. There is much that happens in our environment which we fail to notice, although minute, but significant. Now in order to be better en lighted we need good observational skills which will help us look at thinks that we fail to see. Science provides us with such a skill, not the bible,qoran, torah, geeta....etc. So please get rid of all these books and lets embark on a journey of enlightenment.

Just an observation... with these types of documentaries, it's always hard to find an actual review of the documentary and not just personal opinions on the matter or heated debate. I love the site though, I haven't watched one I didn't enjoy yet.

The scientist was right in the documentary, science is objective and religion is subjective. Therefore, in the public spheres we will go with what we know to be true and observable; for example that the earth is very old as exemplified by the grand canyon, and in the private sphere you can guide your life by your own personal subjective beliefs, aka your chosen religion or unchosen religion. Everyone, can admit that some things are left to be explained, for example on the Global Calgary News recently they showed footage of a tranparent entity crossing a room that was captured by the security cameras. Something that is not supposed to happen by Christian views or by the views of atheists. The search for truth is slowed down by people holding on to the status quo like a child holds on to their blanky when mom figures it is time for them to give it up and grow up. Whether there is a creator or not people can still choose to be kind, good, and moral. And by the way, the bible has no answers for the presence of Dinosaurs on the earth but I think we have proven without a shadow of a doubt that they existed and anthropologists have still to find the missing link if there is one.

I don't know what "new thing" would qualify for an effective argument, to be honest. I really do believe that there is a God and He inspired the Bible and therefore it litterally has an anwer for everything if you look for it.

At least the Bible or Torah or the Quran can be referred to by all as a "standard". Something "new" like Mr. Razor wants just doesn't seem possible as an "athoritative" text unless he's thinking of a new scientific discovery, say a big rock uncovered in New Jersey that says, "God was here and you were not! Ha! Ha! P.S. I, God, wrote this 4.5359305020 billion years in advance before the day it will be discovered New what you will call "New Jersey" on October 8th 2011! Do you like my big rock that I just made? Check for Plotonium halos, please!"

I'm totally joking, by the way, but wouldn't that be a nice big rock to find? I could see the New York Times headlines now: "God's Graffitti Found in NJ Farmer's Field! Hoax Suspected." ;-)

Yes Charles B. is persistent, which is good. All us Atheist's and other Religions got to him once. But I told him not to throw in the towel.
because he, one man alone was holding his own, against all of us. So yes, I do have respect for Charles.

Achems Razor: Ok. Understood. You always seem to be consistently logical but not "unemotional" which mirrors how I like to view myself.

Charles B. and others like him are trying to "play ball" outside of their main experience in life. You can't blame them for using the old "stand by" as they don't feel it is old or outdated, but cherrished. Something new is not "new," but a threat.

Like anyone, take the truth where you find it, but not the rest if it doesn't help you. I heard a philosopher say, "In some way, every man is my teacher". He's trying very hard to give life questions outside the "box" of his religion I think while still being consistent in his own right. He is persistent, isn't he?

Thank you for pointing that out to me. Yes you are right, I do use Science as my logic. So then I am consistent in my viewpoints also.
But you did scare me, I thought you were going to say I used circular logic until I read further.

What I meant by circular logic, for religion, there is no new avenues for them to discuss, they have no recourse except what is written in the Bible which is static, unchanging. so they go around and around. They cannot offer anything new that people have not heard before.

Eric Howe: Religious people oppose evolution because without a god they have to admit their hopes and dreams and heaven and hell are all mythology.

Evolutionists passionately oppose religion becuase if if religion is correct and evolution not correct, they there is a god and therefore accountability to that god for our actions. There is no mystery here to either groups actions.

Achems Razor: Charles B. is a Christian. Chrisitans use the Bible for their life questions. He is consistent, not circular in his logic. Buddhist, Hindu, Muslims, and even atheists us thier own theories and concepts to address life problems. Charles B. was trying to answer Eric Howe's quesiton from his base of understanding.

Should we say your logic is "circular" when you use quatum theory consistently, as you have done several times to address issues and questions? No. You are consistent also.

It is so redundant! Any thing you ask of religious people, they refer to the Bible. With due respect, but this is all they have. Al least if there was something "new" they could offer, people might sit up and take notice!
Instead, parables from thousands of years ago. That they can not change to keep up with the times. All they can due is to interpret them in different ways, to mean different things. And add more fancyfull tales.

Tim: I meant to trust the Christian God first and understand His reasons for doing things later. I wouldn't advocate trusting everything or every religious philosophy first before testing its merits, as that would be impossible and not prudent.

Eric Howe: Well said. You have some really excellent thoughts and valid criticisms of religious people. However, I don't know what you think is the "dishonesty" of the "godly". Can you give it to me in a nutshell? I don't want to guess at your meaning there.

In response, the Bible is indeed composed of things to be taken litterally and other things to be understood metaphorically. When Jesus said "I am the Good Shepherd" He was talking about people, not sheep, as not a single sheep is mentioned in the Bible being tended by Jesus anywhere. There's nothing wrong with that. Every religion does that and I dare say all atheists do too. Metaphore is widely used in everyday language, why not in Scripture also? That is a blanket criticism that is unfounded.

What do you mean by a "god of the gaps"? What "truth" are you talking about that is diminishing God? Evolution? That's a very shakey "truth" to stand on indeed, and one that has not diminished God in the smallest amount.

I would agree with you, however, that religion is about "conrol and authority" but true Christianity is about life itself; it's about a relationship with God who is indeed the creator who loves us and wants us to be part of who He is as God.

Eric, I would like to appologize to you on behalf of the "Christian" community, as you've obviously been hurt by someone who called themselves a "Christian." I'm sorry. Some of us are overly zealous, and others are just plain evil-hearted and a rotten-to-the-bone hypocrite which is exactly what Jesus hated most too. I just read today in my Bible that Jesus had his harshest rebukes for the "religious" of His day; against the Pharisees, the Sadusees and the Scribes.

I also had a brand new insight into an old parable I just re-read today. Jesus said that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a "dragnet" that is cast into the sea and brings up all kinds---some good and some bad; the good was kept and the bad was cast into eternal damnation. Wow! I had a brand new insight today and it was the fact that religion and even Christianity (the Kingdom of God) has both good and evil inside it together and always will until the end of time. It's no surprise to God. It will only be in the end that the good will be blessed of God and the evil exposed by God and fully punished. It's just a fact of life; where there is money and power, there is evil, but not everyone is evil. A few of us are the "real deal" and for the rest, I do sincerely apologize. Perhaps that is also why Jesus said that "braod is the way that leads to death, and many will follow that way, but narrow is the way that leads to life, and only a few will find it."

Keep asking questions, Eric, until you get an answer you know comes from God Himself and then believe rather than doubt. Let me know if I can answer any more of your questions as briefly as I can.

The dishonesty of the godly never ceases to amaze me. I suppose anything is justified when you are certain that you are serving an angry and jealous god.

Why are the godly so afraid of evolution? Religion is about control and authority, it has nothing to do with truth or morality. An honest review of the history of religion should be enough to convince you of this. Somewhere along the line, someone in the religious community decided that the Bible was the literal word of their god and authority usually demands complete obedience; Galileo wasn't persecuted and shown the instruments of torture because he was an evil man, he was persecuted simply because he implied that the church was wrong, he questioned their authority and was threatened with torture and death for his impetuousness.

Claiming that some parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally and other parts are meant as simple metaphors is an absurd cop out and merely allows the believer to move the goal posts when truth (again) starts casting doubt on their faith. This "god of the gaps" approach leaves the religious with an ever diminishing deity and that must be very uncomfortable for them; a thousand years ago, gods were responsible for everything but now they are left with less and less to do as humanity begins to understand how the universe works.

Charles, is it really a good idea to trust first and understand later? Certainly we can't trust just anyone who demands our faith. If that were the case, we'd have to follow every religion, and I don't think I can take on more than two or three right now because I know I'll just screw that up.

WTC7: My standard for interpreting the Bible is to take it litterally unless it is impossible to do so, and we are sure it is figurative in nature. The art of the matter comes into being by knowing what is literal and what is figurative which is not always easy. Trust but verify is a good policy to follow for any faith that you might have.

If God is real (and I believe He is), then how would He get his message out? What would be the best way? The Bible tells what is most important to have faith, but does not bog down on all the particulars we now think "vital" such as the creation account. It would be nice for our generation to have a nice 400 page book of detailed creation expiditions, but we are one of the first generations in which such WOULD be useful. Perhaps that is why Jesus (whom I believe to be God also), said, you need to come with the faith of "little children" and just trust me. Trust first; understand later. And if you never fully understand, then just keep believing in the One that does.

There is more to the world around us than just what we can see, I am certain of that. And I don't mean only the microscopic organisms...

However, I can't make myself believe in god the way it is presented by the major religions today (with, possibly, the exception of Buddhism, whether one sees it as a religion or not). If the Bible, for example, is to be taken literally, than it means nothing, it's just a bunch of crap that anyone with a questioning and open mind wouldn't believe; if it is not to be taken literally, than I don't know what it means and what it talks about. Surely nothing that I can understand. (Personally, I believe the god of Moses was of alien origin, that's the only way I can make sense of it, but it still doesn't explain how did this alien come to exist.)

Having said the above, the evolution theory has its own gaps, and one shouldn't take it as a bible either. To me, it is simply a theory that, for the time being, and at current level of our knowledge and understanding, offers the most rational answers to most questions - but it shouldn't be forgotten that it doesn't offer all the answers...

There is more out there than the science today, void of any spirituality, and even belligerent towards it, can explain. Perhaps a tiny bit of it could help... :-)

In my view the bible did a great disservice to spirituality. It seeded humans with guilt and shame and everyday we harvest the fruit of those seeds. Unless you make a person feel guilty, you cannot enslave him psychologically. And once you have created guilt you destroy all that is adventurous in a human. That kind of guilt most religious people accept with their head down. We can reject it because it is man written, therefore it is a kind of control that comes to us by one of us.
If a scientist makes a wrong assumption we do not call that a sin, it is simply a mistake and can be corrected but religion has always said a mistake is a sin, be right or be guilty and shameful, it has exploited humanity since the time of the bible.
The only guilt we should carry is the guilt that comes from not going to our own personal further potential. That guilt is the kick in the butt we give ourself in order to reach our union with our own divine Self.
As a drop i belong to the sea.
Meditation is a fantastic tool, a magic wand, a "phone" line into the void. One doesn't have to sit in a buddha position on top of a mountain in the Himalayas, there are many ways to meditate. Art, eye gazing, playing with a child or sitting in a buddha position are all ways to access the wordless, and the only way that works is the way that works for you.
In that absence of thinking someone can feel the wordless within.
az

Guest
- 05/01/2011 at 19:28

and in a way science is the opposite of that as much as religion is.
az

sowhat
- 11/08/2009 at 14:29

Why?...if the story of creation could be doubted, so too could the existence of the creator? What a bunch of ****! One does not imply the other. Narrow minded. These arguments are designed to breed doubt. In truth, the bible is not to be taken literally, especially Genesis, anyone who thinks so is not very astute. But this is all part of the big lie that keeps people divided which is what the elitists want. Abortion,Gays, and Creation - all arguments to weaken the middle class...wake up.